Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thank you all for your replies, particularly the one about advising me to get some sleep! But I have a 15 year old daughter, so, XML or no XML, sleep does not come easily...
Anyhow, I will tell my friend to try defining the groups instead of elements under the choice tag. I looked at that, but the cheap reference I was using seemed to imply that you could only "choice" elements. That's what I get for not going back to the standard, but somehow, I just couldn't make myself do it.
From: Chiusano Joseph <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: May 5, 2004 7:23 AM
To: Bob Foster <email@example.com>
Cc: Linda Grimaldi <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Schema validation question
Bob Foster wrote:
> This would be trivial to do in RELAX NG, but why do it? If the value of
> one element is fixed by the name of another, then the value is redundant
> and may be omitted.
How would you then pass that value on to the next system/process if it
is omitted? The subsequent processing might depend on that value being
there - and you may not be able to (for whatever reason) enhance the
subsequent system/process to "inherently" recognize that value.
Booz | Allen | Hamilton
Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World
> Such a thing is only useful for producing error
> Bob Foster
> Linda Grimaldi wrote:
> > I have been out of the XML world for a little while now, but someone just asked me a question and I have to admit, it's going to keep me up tonight if I can't come up with a better solution. And I'm a little rusty, to boot...
> > The issue is one of data dependency and validation. The goal is to enforce a restriction on pairs of data values- if the data associated with the node <Fruit><Name> is "Apple", then the value of the sibling node <Fruit><Abbrev> must be "APL". Effectively, the goal is to enforce a specific mapping from one enum into another within an XML document. The only way my associate could figure to capture this dependency is as follows:
> > <xs:complexType name="Fruit">
> > <xs:annotation>
> > <xs:documentation>Defines the valid values for fruit types</xs:documentation>
> > </xs:annotation>
> > <xs:choice>
> > <xs:element name="APL" type="xs:token" fixed="Apple"/>
> > <xs:element name="ORG" type="xs:token" fixed="Orange"/>
> > <xs:element name="BAN" type="xs:token" fixed="Banana"/>
> > <xs:element name="LEM" type="xs:token" fixed="Lemon"/>
> > <xs:element name="GRP" type="xs:token" fixed="Grape"/>
> > </xs:choice>
> > </xs:complexType>
> > All in all, this strikes me as a very ugly, even offensive, solution. My initial response was to forget about the validation- it wasn't worth it. Is there a way to preserve the data dependency validation without warping the instance document as the above schema fragment would require?
> > Thanks,
> > Linda
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
Booz | Allen | Hamilton