W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom-ts@w3.org > May 2001

Re: First pass at generated schema for DOM 1 + HTML

From: Mary Brady <mbrady@nist.gov>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 12:33:09 -0400
Message-ID: <009101c0e926$360cee20$293b0681@HAPPY>
To: <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
Yes -- of course, sorry -- I had another
meeting starting as I sent it off.

--Mary
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dimitris Dimitriadis" <dimitris.dimitriadis@improve.se>
To: <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 12:15 PM
Subject: VB: First pass at generated schema for DOM 1 + HTML


> I take it this was meant for the list? (with some inlined comments)
>
> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Från: Mary Brady [mailto:mbrady@nist.gov]
> Skickat: den 30 maj 2001 17:10
> Till: Dimitris Dimitriadis
> Ämne: Re: First pass at generated schema for DOM 1 + HTML
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dimitris Dimitriadis" <dimitris.dimitriadis@improve.se>
> To: "'Mary Brady'" <mbrady@nist.gov>; <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 9:51 AM
> Subject: SV: First pass at generated schema for DOM 1 + HTML
>
>
> > I think we should create a thread to discuss exactly what vocabulary we
> > intend to produce. Generating directly from the schema lets us use the
> > native inerface and method names. I'd like to see that we do this.
> >
> Yes, I agree
>
> > As an answer to your questions, mary, i think we've decided to support
the
> > IDL-style subset of the DTD and the Schema that have been proposed so
far,
> > so not any of them, but rather a subset of the union of them.
> >
>
> I understand that, but in Curt's last iteration, he had changed to this
> style.  If we
> were getting close, then I have a couple of folks who can start coding the
> NIST
> tests along these lines  -- in fact, this is already done for the Node
> tests.  Making
> minor mods after the fact will be ok.  This serves as a sanity check for
us
> so
> we can get immediate feedback, and be sure that all is accounted for.
>
> > One observation: should we state returntypes on methods as we did in the
> > dtd? or would this be inferable from the schema?
> >
> Not sure -- is this inferable?
>
> > Another question is if we shouldn't still state
interfaceName/methodName,
> > even in cases where this is reduntant. This I think is easier to write
in
> > the schema. Your views?
> >
> How about if we make it required with a default value of the interfaceName
> that it corresponds to -- that way, we are sure that it is available to
the
> transformation.
>
> [dd] I could live with making them required with default values if it
> doesn't introduce too much overhead.
>
> > For the rest I propose the following for immediate action:
> >
> > 1. separate the dom ts ml generating parts from the language construct
> parts
> > in the schema
> > 2. write a simple app to run the xsl against all dom source files
> > 3. collect the schema snippets into one file, or create a master schema
> > (perhaps with the constructs and the packaging/suite info) and include
the
> > other files.
> >
>
> So, modify the transformation to only include the DOM constructs, write
> an app to iterate over all files (using SAXON), and package it all.
>
> I can take a crack at writing the app.
>
> [dd] Actually this is taken care of by running the stylesheet against
> wg-dom.xml which expands all other files. we still need to discuss the
> packaging issues, though
>
> /Dimitris
>
>
> --Mary
>
>
> > /Dimitris
> >
> > -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> > Från: Mary Brady [mailto:mbrady@nist.gov]
> > Skickat: den 30 maj 2001 15:40
> > Till: www-dom-ts@w3.org
> > Ämne: Re: First pass at generated schema for DOM 1 + HTML
> >
> >
> > This looks quite good -- I like the idea of
> > generating directly from the spec -- is it
> > the intent that the generated schema will
> > be equivalent to Curt's latest schema, if
> > we had updated it to include all of DOM
> > Level 1?
> >
> > --Mary
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dimitris Dimitriadis" <dimitris.dimitriadis@improve.se>
> > To: "'Curt Arnold'" <carnold@houston.rr.com>; <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 9:16 AM
> > Subject: SV: First pass at generated schema for DOM 1 + HTML
> >
> >
> > > I've added the simpleTypes
> > >
> > > <xsd:simpleType name="DOMExceptionCode">
> > > <xsd:annotation>
> > > <xsd:documentation>DOMExceptions raised</xsd:documentation>
> > > </xsd:annotation>
> > > <xsd:restriction base="xsd:string">
> > > <xsd:pattern value="[A-Z][_]*"/>
> > > </xsd:restriction>
> > > </xsd:simpleType>
> > > <xsd:simpleType name="RangeExceptionCode">
> > > <xsd:annotation>
> > > <xsd:documentation>RangeExceptionCode</xsd:documentation>
> > > </xsd:annotation>
> > > <xsd:restriction base="xsd:string">
> > > </xsd:restriction>
> > > </xsd:simpleType>
> > > <xsd:simpleType name="EventExceptionCode">
> > > <xsd:annotation>
> > > <xsd:documentation>EventExceptionCode</xsd:documentation>
> > > </xsd:annotation>
> > > <xsd:restriction base="xsd:string">
> > > </xsd:restriction>
> > > </xsd:simpleType>
> > >
> > > to my local Copy as well as preliminary definitions of the followinf
> > (taken
> > > from Curt's original schema)
> > >
> > > <xsd:element name="dispatchEvent" substitutionGroup="DOMFunction">
> > > <xsd:annotation>
> > > <xsd:appinfo>
> > > <!--<annot:function featureOf="EventTarget"
> > > return="boolean"/>-->
> > > </xsd:appinfo>
> > > </xsd:annotation>
> > > <xsd:complexType>
> > > <xsd:complexContent>
> > > <xsd:extension base="DOMFunction">
> > > <xsd:attribute name="event" type="variable"
> > > use="required"/>
> > > </xsd:extension>
> > > </xsd:complexContent>
> > > </xsd:complexType>
> > > </xsd:element>
> > > <xsd:complexType name="DOMFunction">
> > > <xsd:attribute name="obj" type="variable" use="required"/>
> > >
> > > <xsd:attribute name="var" type="variable" use="required"/>
> > > </xsd:complexType>
> > > <xsd:element name="DOMFunction" type="DOMFunction" abstract="true"/>
> > >
> > > and it seems to work fine. I'll continue tuning it and post the result
> > later
> > > today.
> > >
> > > I have som eproblems with my source files, though, for example the
> > > Document.xml for level 1 doesn't have a root node. This goes for some
of
> > the
> > > HTML interfaces as well.
> > >
> > > /Dimitris
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> > > Från: Curt Arnold [mailto:carnold@houston.rr.com]
> > > Skickat: den 30 maj 2001 08:53
> > > Till: www-dom-ts@w3.org
> > > Ämne: First pass at generated schema for DOM 1 + HTML
> > >
> > >
> > > I've posted an XSLT transform and a generated XML Schema from the DOM
1
> > xml
> > > sources at http://home.houston.rr.com/curta/domtest/genschema.zip   It
> is
> > > really fresh and only superficially checked.  I executed the transform
> > with
> > > SAXON 6.2.2.
> > >
> > > It should be pretty easy to generate both XML Schema and DTD's from
the
> > DOM
> > > specs XML sources and so eliminate the need for XML Schema to DTD
> > > conversion.  However, I started with XML Schema first, as always.
> > >
> > > The transform isn't smart enough yet to handle an read-write property
> name
> > > that has different types in different uses or methods with different
> > calling
> > > signatures in different uses.
> > >
> > > I've not tried the transform against the level 2 sources, but I did
take
> a
> > > quick look at them.  There were a couple of issues, first the
directory
> > > entries in the xml-sources.zip file contained "..", for example, one
> file
> > > was named "..\..\..\pubtext\xmlspec-v21-dom.dtd".   This requires you
to
> > > unpack to a directory at least 3 levels deep.  It would also be
helpful
> to
> > > know what parameters can accept a null string or node.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2001 12:35:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:34:02 UTC