[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Exactly. So either the sForS is invalid (which wouldn't matter if it
wasn't a normative reference) or there needs to be acknowledgement in
the W3C XML Schema recommendation that the sForS should be special cased
by validating processors. Either way, the issue is not clear cut.
--
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
rights.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Verhaeg [mailto:jverhaeg@metamatrix.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 9:43 AM
> To: Dare Obasanjo; Henry S. Thompson
> Cc: peej@mindspring.com; xml-dev@lists.xml.org; xmlschema-dev@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] (more details) embedding xml schema in
> an instance doc
>
>
> It seems like section 3.14.6, "Schema Component Constraint:
> Type Derivation OK (Simple)", of XML Schema Structures Part 1
> doesn't allow for atomic restrictions, which of course the
> sForS must do, so it would seem there would have to be a
> special case for it.
>
> John P. A. Verhaeg
> JVerhaeg@MetaMatrix.Com
> MetaMatrix, Inc.
> 11477 Olde Cabin Road Suite 400
> Creve Coeur, MO 63141
> (314) 739-3190 x150
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dare Obasanjo [mailto:dareo@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 10:57 AM
> To: Henry S. Thompson
> Cc: peej@mindspring.com; xml-dev@lists.xml.org; xmlschema-dev@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] (more details) embedding xml schema in
> an instance doc
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Henry S. Thompson [mailto:ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 3:17 AM
> > To: Dare Obasanjo
> > Cc: peej@mindspring.com; xml-dev@lists.xml.org; xmlschema-dev@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: [xml-dev] (more details) embedding xml schema in
> > an instance doc
> >
> > "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com> 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
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema
> > > 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 namespace
<myns:root xmlns:myns="urn:xmlns:25hoursaday-com:example"
xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema";>
<xs:element name="foo" type="xs:string" />
</myns:root>
--
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
rights.
|
