Lists Home |
Date Index |
> The W3C XML Schema recommendation allows for doing (1) since
> xsischemaLocation and xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation are just
> "hints" but doing (2) is the kind of thing that is typically
> called a "non-standard extension" and given that schemas should
> be interoperable as much as possible, I'd be hesitant to
> encourage validating processors to augment the REC in such a manner.
Isn't this a product differentiation issue? Some will require
schemaLocation attributes, some will provide override behaviour,
some will provide schema caches, some will allow specification of
the element/type definition to use for the top level element. In
every case the schema itself is not affected. The nature of the
contract between the partners exchanging information will determine
the most appropriate strategy.
Interestingly the RELAX NG spec says nothing about the process of
tying schema to instance - it just says what the RELAX NG processor
should do once it gets them. I guess the idea is to leave it to the
market to decide the best ways to do this. James?