Lists Home |
Date Index |
I'm trying to use XML Schema(XSD) too.
There are many ways to define a schema with XSD.
the following URL is the article about 'how to avoid the pitfalls'.
That maybe help you.
And also, there are many practical XSDs.
As I know, it seems the best practice is as following sample.
(download zip file, then extract
and find root xsd file in 'XML/Interchange' directory)
That is the standarized xml based message schema about
notifing of Semiconductor Test Data. That design is 'Modular based'.
I think that is a good sample for designing XSD.
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:50:06 +0100
Chizzolini Stefano <email@example.com> wrote:
> Hi all
> I'm defining a schema (via XML Schema) stretched over multiple documents,
> but I feel quite unsure about the best strategy to reference its definitions
> each other across the file boundaries.
> What I need is a clean method to enable the reuse of components.
> As I know, there are mainly two constructs from the XSD namespace for this
> - include element: same target namespace as the including document;
> - import element: any target namespace.
> (I chose the include element as it seems to fit my case).
> My headache comes when I try to establish WHICH document references WHAT
> For example (the target namespace is the same for all the documents):
> - document A contains common types (it could be considered the main document
> for the target namespace);
> - document B contains derived types;
> - document C contains other basic (non-derived) types;
> - documents FF are future extensions of the target namespace.
> Document A should be reused by B and FF.
> Should I:
> - include A inside B and FF, whilst C inside A? This way all the common
> components are centrally referenced by A, while any extension document (B or
> FF) has just to care about referencing the main document (A). This should
> improve the referential consistency and smooth expandability, but forces any
> instance document to reference the location of a specific "leaf" schema
> document (I say, B or FF) as the main document (A) isn't aware about any
> extension document (it has just references to basic component documents like
> - include A inside B and FF, whilst B and FF and C inside A? This way any
> instance document could reference just the main document (A) and use all the
> derived types at a time, but the references across the schema documents
> would be multiplied and would cause circular references (is it legal? may it
> affect the validator performance?). As another side effect, the main
> document should be updated any time an extension document is created.
> Which solution do you think that's better?
> Is there another (better) approach?
> Thanks for the tips!
> 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>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.5.0 - Release Date: 2004/12/09
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.5.4 - Release Date: 2004/12/15