This document:Public document·View comments·Disposition of Comments·
Nearby:Efficient Extensible Interchange Working Group Other specs in this tool
Quick access to LC-2103 LC-2104 LC-2105 LC-2106 LC-2107 LC-2108 LC-2109 LC-2110 LC-2130 LC-2132 LC-2133 LC-2164 LC-2165 LC-2166 LC-2167 LC-2168 LC-2169 LC-2170 LC-2171 LC-2172 LC-2173 LC-2174 LC-2175 LC-2176 LC-2177 LC-2178 LC-2179 LC-2180 LC-2181 LC-2182 LC-2183 LC-2184 LC-2185 LC-2186 LC-2187 LC-2188 LC-2189 LC-2190 LC-2191 LC-2192 LC-2193 LC-2194 LC-2196 LC-2197 LC-2198 LC-2227 LC-2248
Previous: LC-2187 Next: LC-2191
6) Is it conformant to not follow the attribute order in the case of a schema-informed grammar encoded element in deviation mode? As stated in section 6, it seems not conformant. In some cases, grammars can support attributes in no particular order, such as the example below (correct me if I got something wrong). <xs:complexType name="test"> <xs:attribute name="name" type="xs:string"/> <xs:anyAttribute namespace="#any"/> </xs:complexType> <xs:element name="test" type="test"/> While the benefit of ordering the attributes at the grammar level and the general compression benefit for encoders to follow the given order are obvious, I do not see compelling reasons of including this constraint in the format itself. At the encoder side, the encoder may decide to order attributes or not. If encoding fails due to bad ordering (in strict mode) or if the compression ratio is bad, the encoder can always decide to order the attributes. At the decoder side, the decoder is only following the grammars so it does not really care about the ordering. There is even a drawback as this is one (major ?) difference between schema-informed and schema-less processing. Am I missing something obvious?