[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
H'mmm, I been discussing some of this with my colleagues. One things I
am slightly concerned about is 'raising the bar' too high for some
service consumers.
The default way that most people validate messages is via XML schema
and the standard features of a validating parser. Where that schema
includes extensibility, then the communicating parties can choose
whether to take account of the content in those locations (if they
have a schema on which they have both agreed), or ignore it. Using
processContent = 'lax' most closely supports this approach, whereas
skip just ignores content altogether..
As you know I am also interested in NVDL, partly because it supports
other ideas we have about selecting only those parts of a message that
are of interest to us and ignoring anything else (a form of 'must
ignore' pattern). However, using mechanisms such as NVDL or writing
something yourself that does soemthing similar, means that in a large
community you may be either forcing everyone to meet this level of
processing sophistication, or be removing the possibility of
performing at least the default validation processing provided 'out of
the box' by most validating parsers. Hence my earlier comment about
whether in the face of using extensibility in schema, the criticality
of NVDL is reduced. That is, assuming you just wanted structural
validation, why wouldn't you just load up your parser's schema cache
with all of the schema that you are interested in validating against
including any from any of the xs:any extensibility points (sorry just
having a bit of fun seeing how many times I could say 'any' in one
sentance :-).
Fraser.
On 16/05/06, G. Ken Holman <gkholman@cranesoftwrights.com> wrote:
> At 2006-05-16 11:11 +0100, Fraser Goffin wrote:
> >>I've suggested processContents="skip".
> >
> >I know, I saw the email. Why not 'lax' ?
> >
> >Fraser.
> >
> >On 16/05/06, G. Ken Holman <gkholman@cranesoftwrights.com> wrote:
> >>...
> >>My tests indicate what I think is needed for the schema declaration:
> >>
> >> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200604/msg00074.html
> >>
> >>I've suggested processContents="skip".
>
> Because I feel the new UBL extensibility element should be a black
> box. If I were to use "lax" then the W3C Schema validation step
> would be looking inside the black box for elements it knows about ...
> and I don't need it to ... because I'll be using NVDL to despatch the
> contents of the black box to outboard validation tasks, so there is
> no need to confuse the validation results being interpreted by the
> end user to be told twice that something is wrong inside of the black box.
>
> So I really think "skip" is what has to be used.
>
> . . . . . . . . . Ken
>
> --
> Registration open for XSLT/XSL-FO training: Wash.,DC 2006-06-12/16
> Also for XSLT/XSL-FO training: Minneapolis, MN 2006-07-31/08-04
> Also for XML/XSLT/XSL-FO training: Varo, Denmark 2006-09-25/10-05
> World-wide on-site corporate, govt. & user group XML/XSL training.
> G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
> Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/u/
> Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0 +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995)
> Male Cancer Awareness Aug'05 http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/u/bc
> Legal business disclaimers: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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>
>
>
|
