W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xsd-databinding@w3.org > October 2006

Re: ISSUE-74: Relative URIs in targetNamespace schemaLocation

From: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 13:16:00 +0100
Message-ID: <000601c6f378$5da6b7b0$6000a8c0@RW>
To: <paul.downey@bt.com>, <public-xsd-databinding@w3.org>

Hi Paul,

I see your point.  I don't think we do much with xml:base!  I also think we 
need to differentiate between the different uses schemaLocation.

How about...

Basic Profile:
absolute URIs in @targetNamesapce
absolute URIs in xs:schema/@schemaLocation
relative URIs in [xs:import|xs:include]/@schemaLocation

Advanced Profile:
use of xml:base
absolute or relative (to base) URIs in @targetNamesapce
absolute or relative (to base) URIs in xs:schema/@schemaLocation
absolute or relative (to self or base?) URIs in 
[xs:import|xs:include]/@schemaLocation

Pete.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
To: <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>; <public-xsd-databinding@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 12:41 PM
Subject: RE: ISSUE-74: Relative URIs in targetNamespace schemaLocation


Hi Pete

I'd agree that a relative URI for schemaLocation is common, but
I'm concerned about support for xml:base in conjunction with such URIs.
How well is that likely to be supported?

Maybe a good way forward would be to allow absolute URIs in 
@targetNamesapce,
absolute and relative URIs in @schemaLocation, and warn about interactions
with xml:base?

Paul



-----Original Message-----
From: public-xsd-databinding-request@w3.org on behalf of Pete Cordell
Sent: Thu 10/19/2006 10:02 AM
To: Databinding WG
Subject: Re: ISSUE-74: Relative URIs in targetNamespace schemaLocation


Hi Paul,

FWIW our tool parses schemas that have been downloaded to local disk.
(Officially I guess we'd call it a local schema cache - or whatever XSD
would call it.  The user specifies the set of files in the cache - main
schema and those that are imported - and the schemas are compiled from
there.)

BUT... xs:include is slightly different and the tool works out where the
file is from schemaLocation attribute (is that the one I mean?).  Hence
relative URIs work for us better in this context.

So (similar to Paul Kiel's message) from our point of view, relative URIs
would be better (Basic?) in xs:include.  We don't really care what they are
in any other place!

Pete.
--
=============================================
Pete Cordell
Tech-Know-Ware Ltd
for XML to C++ data binding visit
http://www.tech-know-ware.com/lmx
(or http://www.xml2cpp.com)
=============================================

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Databinding Issue Tracker" <dean+cgi@w3.org>
To: <public-xsd-databinding@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 9:51 PM
Subject: ISSUE-74: Relative URIs in targetNamespace schemaLocation


>
>
> ISSUE-74: Relative URIs in targetNamespace schemaLocation
>
> http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/databinding/issues/74
>
> Raised by: Paul Downey
> On product: Basic
>
> The interaction between relative URIs in schema/@targetNamespace and
> schema/[import|include]/@schemaLocation with @xml:base
> would appear to be likely to be problematic in some toolkits.
>
> Proposal: Absolute URIs are Basic, Relative URIs advanced.
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 19 October 2006 12:16:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:20:37 GMT