W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > January to March 2001

RE: what should I expect for validation of attributes of type QNa me?

From: Vun Kannon, David <dvunkannon@kpmg.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:43:11 -0500
Message-Id: <17D550E30E75D31190C30008C75DCFC4047E05DD@usmnyexc06.kweb.us.kpmg.com>
To: "'ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk'" <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: "'www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org'" <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>

> QNames as datatypes in ordinary documents (not XML Schema documents)
> are just that, qualified names, and are simply constrained to have the
> right form and to have an appropriate NS declaration in scope.
> There's no implication that they 'refer' to schema components, or that
> they should 'resolve' to anything.
> ht

Sadly, I'm not getting even that quality of validation, but I'll have to
take that up with the vendor.

I want not just the form of a QName, but the semantics of resolution as
well. The "XMLSchemaResolvableQName" datatype.
Or perhaps what I really want is an "onValidate" attribute via which I can
specify code which will add my own stuff to the PSVI. Then I could write

<attribute name="measure" type="QName" onValidate="my:resolveQName(this)"/>

as well as many other things, of course. Sort of like a trigger function in
a database. Or does this hook exist already?
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else
is unauthorized. 

If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution
or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited
and may be unlawful. When addressed to our clients any opinions or advice
contained in this email are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in
the governing KPMG client engagement letter.         
Received on Wednesday, 24 January 2001 10:53:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:54 UTC