[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
RE: Redefine and Import used together - is this valid?
- From: "Michael Kay" <mike@saxonica.com>
- To: "'Danny Vint'" <dvint@sack.dreamhost.com>,<xmlschema-dev@w3.org>,<xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
- Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:38:21 +0100
The rule imposed by XML Schema is that you can't use two different types
with the same name in the same validation episode. So you can't use a type
and its redefinition.
Many products have a schema cache of one kind or another. Whether such a
cache allows you to have more than one type with the same name is very much
implementation-defined, because the spec confines itself to the behaviour of
a single validation episode. Saxon, for example, will prevent you redefining
a type if the base type in the schema cache has already been used for
validation, even in a previous episode.
Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org
> [mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Danny Vint
> Sent: 15 September 2006 16:41
> To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: Redefine and Import used together - is this valid?
>
>
> I have the following situation:
>
> 1) Base industry standard schema (ACORD)
> 2) A schema that imports the ACORD schema (to reuse data
> types and some
> elements) that defines my organizations new elements and
> aggregates (ACME)
> 3) A schema that redefines #1 ACORD to modify existing
> elements and aggregates to include my new ACME elements.
>
> I then have a docuemnt instance the references #3.
>
> Xerces and XSV say my document and schemas are valid. When I
> run this with XML Spy I can validate the schemas standalone,
> but when I try to validate the document based upon the
> schemas, Spy reports that my redefined elements in #3 have
> already been defined and this is an error.
>
> Becasue I knew Spy uses more than one parser (different views
> use different parsers) I figured the parser valdiating the
> document was incorrect. Well the Altova folks say their
> schema validation is wrong in this case. Can I get some
> confirmation of this one way or another from this group?
>
> If Altova is correct then I think the Schema working group
> has some serious work to fix this problem. I'm assuming that
> I should be able to reuse an industry schema in this manner.
> We want to both use the same datatypes from ACORD as well in
> some places to add ACORD elements into our new elements when
> the definitions are appropriate. If I have to recreate all
> these types and elements, I loose much of that promise of resuability.
>
> Any light you can shed on this situation is much appreciated.
> Meanwhile I'll be tryiing to read the spec on this topic.
>
> ...dan
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
> Danny Vint
>
> Specializing in Panoramic Images of California and the West
> http://www.dvint.com
>
> Voice:510:522-4703
> FAX: 801-749-3229
>
>
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]