John, I've got a pretty hard stop early next week. At that point whatever state the schemas are in is pretty much how they'll stay. That said, if there is an elegant solution available via W3C, I'm all for finding it. I completely agree that the current distinction between core and extension parameters is pleasing and should be preserved if possible.
Do you know of an appropriate forum to pose this question? I feel like I'm at most informed, so if you have any contacts or thoughts, please pull them in to the discussion! I agree that there should be a way to do this, so hopefully we're just missing something... But absent an elegant method, a big fat comment in the XSD would also work for me. Thanks, C -----Original Message----- From: John R. Hogerhuis [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 2:13 PM To: LLRP Toolkit Development List Subject: Re: [ltk-d] Recommended change to llrp-1x0.xsd On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Chris Delaney <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yeah, I agree that should work. If I understand correctly, a valid message > might then look something like: > > <READER_EVENT_NOTIFICATION MessageID='0' > xmlns:param='http://www.llrp.org/ltk/schema/param/encoding/xml/1.0' > xmlns:llrp='http://www.llrp.org/ltk/schema/core/encoding/xml/1.0' > xmlns='http://www.llrp.org/ltk/schema/core/encoding/xml/1.0'> > <param:ReaderEventNotificationData> > <param:UTCTimestamp> > <param:Microseconds>2007-03-07T17:01:18.714842</param:Microseconds> > </param:UTCTimestamp> > <param:ConnectionAttemptEvent> > <param:Status>Success</param:Status> > </param:ConnectionAttemptEvent> > </param:ReaderEventNotificationData> > </READER_EVENT_NOTIFICATION> Yeah, not ideal to break compatibility, and it would make for some more complex instance documents. There's a certain beauty to the current state of affairs (core easily distinguishable from extensions) that we should not concede. If you really feel we've exhausted the possibilities within XML Schema, then I'll drop my objection to horking up the core xsd. That is, if we all think that XML Schema really cannot do what we want, then Paul's suggestion is the best option. We'll put a big fat comment and move on with life. I'm not totally convinced we've exhausted the possibilities since I think an XML Schema expert might be able to point us in the right direction. I feel like an interloper every time I deal W3C XML Schema and I designed the LTK-XML approach in the first place. Yikes. Question for another forum. What's your deadline? You know I'm in no hurry :-) -- John. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ OpenSolaris 2009.06 is a cutting edge operating system for enterprises looking to deploy the next generation of Solaris that includes the latest innovations from Sun and the OpenSource community. Download a copy and enjoy capabilities such as Networking, Storage and Virtualization. Go to: http://p.sf.net/sfu/opensolaris-get _______________________________________________ llrp-toolkit-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/llrp-toolkit-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ OpenSolaris 2009.06 is a cutting edge operating system for enterprises looking to deploy the next generation of Solaris that includes the latest innovations from Sun and the OpenSource community. Download a copy and enjoy capabilities such as Networking, Storage and Virtualization. Go to: http://p.sf.net/sfu/opensolaris-get _______________________________________________ llrp-toolkit-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/llrp-toolkit-devel
