[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Jeni Tennison wrote
> I think that a well-designed stylesheet should reference a schema that
> contains the type definitions for any types that it uses internally.
> Otherwise it's like using a named template and expecting the source
> document to provide its definition; not a wise course of action. In
> fact, given that (in some applications) you might have a compile-once,
> use-multiple-times architecture, it would be fatal to refer to a type
> for which you don't have a definition within a referenced schema.
>
Here's the situation I was thinking of. You have worked with another party
who sends you documents according to a schema, but once the process is
working the schema location isn't included anymore to prevent validation of
every instance, which you have learned takes too long, or because the schema
isn't always available (sometimes you work off-line and can't connect to the
schema's location), but you still need to run transformations for some good
reason. You have confidence that the documents are valid.
This isn't uncommon today with DTDs, and I suppose it will happen with X-xxx
2.0 when schemas come into play. With DTDs, you have the problem of
defaulted and fixed attributes being missing, but they are often (usually?)
not used. With XML schemas, you hve the problem that if the schema is
missing, the types are missing too.
Cheers,
Tom P
|
