[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
- From: "Fuchs, Matthew" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 10:55:34 -0700
Yes, you can always "cheat" locally, and any of the old-time SGMLers will
tell you that many applications were built around applying multiple DTDs to
instances - to very good l. However, you need to be careful not to perturb
the document so as to lose the original semantics. In particular, if you're
engaging in some multi-party activity, there's likely a "blessed" schema and
you can't move too far from that (and you'll need to go back to it when
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francis Norton [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 1:34 AM
> To: Fuchs, Matthew
> Cc: 'Richard Tobin'; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
> "Fuchs, Matthew" wrote:
> > But if elementFormDefault were in the instance, I wouldn't
> need to rewrite a
> > schema I don't have write access to.
> XML Schema validation is designed round the principle that the message
> *reader* chooses the schema to validate against - that's why the spec
> has language like
> "The xsi:schemaLocation and xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation
> attributes can
> be used in a document to provide hints as to the physical location of
> schema documents which may be used for ·assessment·."
> So you are absolutely free to validate a transformed message against a
> transformed local copy of the schema - and thanks for providing such a
> good use case for a possibly counter-intuitive design feature.