Thanks Joseph, That's the change we've decided upon. Regards, Stephen. Joseph Reagle wrote: > On Tuesday 25 May 2004 12:56, Stephen Farrell wrote: > >>The RFC editor pointed out that their schema checker objects to >>the schemaLocation value above since they don't have a dsig >>core schema at that relative location. > > > That sounds approriate. > > > >>The schemaLocation attribute is however just a hint [2], so the >>schema passes using the checker on the w3c site. > > > Yes, though if you do use it, the Schema spec says [b] "When a > schemaLocation is present, it must contain a single URI reference which the > schema author warrants will resolve to a serialization of a ·schema > document· containing the component(s) in the <import>ed namespace referred > to elsewhere in the containing schema document." > > [b] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#composition-schemaImport > > >>So, the question:- >> >>- is it ok as is? > > > A non-working hint doesn't seem appropriate to me, why would you use it? To debug the RFC editor's processes of course:-) > > >>- should I change the value of schemaLocation to use an >> absolute URL, in particular [3]? >> >>I assume the latter is better. > > > Yep, the only way it wouldn't is if somehow one interpreted the URL as a > secure string/identifier. For example, there's some program that will only > use schemas that when they import from dsig, import that specific string, > and not the URL. But I'm not aware of any such processing, and the W3C > never indicated "../W3C/xmldsig-core-schema.xsd" is a blessed > string/identifier -- unlike other algorithm identifier URIs where we use an > absolute URI.Received on Friday, 28 May 2004 05:52:10 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:18 GMT