Lists Home |
Date Index |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henry S. Thompson [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 3:17 AM
> To: Dare Obasanjo
> Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] (more details) embedding xml schema in
> an instance doc
> "Dare Obasanjo" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > The sForS is not a valid schema and thus should fail to validate.
> I think it's time to stop saying this. As Eddie noted, there
> is only one remaining issue (the use of whiteSpace in the
> definitions for the builtin primitives) and this is a
> contentious issue -- validators which enforce all and only
> the normative requirements now pass the sForS.
I'm not sure I understand this sentence so I'll ask again. Should
restrictions of xs:anySimpleTYpe be allowed or not? I've heard
conflicting answers to this question from various W3C XML Schema WG
members and tend to agree with those that say it should be disallowed.
Or are you saying that schema validators should special case the sForS?
> > As for validating processors to allow
> > <xs:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" />
> > so users can specify items from the
> > namespace in their
> instance documents is a work around to this
> > deficiency that I am not sure any validating processor currently
> > implements.
> Works in XSV. But why do it? All the public components from
> the sForS are already available by definition, without any
> import being required.
If this is the case can you show me the valid schema for the following
XML document and explain how the schema conforms to the W3C XML Schema
recommendation without importing the http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema
<xs:element name="foo" type="xs:string" />
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
The shortest distance between two points is under repair.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no