Re: [xml-dev] RELAX NG: Are Grammar Elements Always Required to Containa

[George Cristian Bina <george@oxygenxml.com>]

Hi Tom,

That file that you create only to be included in another schema is not 
valid by itself, however, it may contribute without problems to form a 
valid grammar when included from another file.

Similar issues appear not only for Relax NG but also for XSLT, XQuery 
and even XML documents.

oXygen handles these cases through validation scenarios. For instance 
you can define a validation scenario for that Relax NG file and specify 
that instead of validating that file alone oXygen should validate the 
file that includes it.

More information about validation scenarios can be found here
video demo:
http://www.oxygenxml.com/demo/ValidationScenario/ValidationScenario.html
user guide entry:
http://www.oxygenxml.com/doc/ug-standalone/validation-scenario.html

Best Regards,
George
---------------------------------------------------------------------
George Cristian Bina - http://aboutxml.blogspot.com/
<oXygen/> XML Editor, Schema Editor and XSLT Editor/Debugger
http://www.oxygenxml.com


Rudick, Tom wrote:
> Hello All,
>  
> I am somewhat new to RELAX NG and just starting to get my feet wet with
> more complex topics.  I am trying to create a "modular" schema by
> making use of the <include> element.  I have followed the schemas used
> in the RELAX NG Tutorial
> (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/relax-ng/tutorial.html) in
> section 9.3 to merge grammars using the <include> element.
>  
> However, both my current editor (OxygenXML) and jing, tell me that the
> document to be included is 'missing "start" element' and that it is
> invalid.  I have noticed that in section 4.18 of the RELAX NG
> Specification
> (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/relax-ng/spec-20011203.html#IDASN
> ZR) is stated, "A grammar must have a start child element." 
>  
> Does this mean that I cannot correctly create a schema that does not
> have a start element, even though it is to be included in another
> schema?  Or am I interpreting section 4.18 incorrectly?
>  
> Thanks in advance,
> -Tom Rudick
>