W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > July to September 2002

Re: [xml-dev] XPointer and XML Schema

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 17 Jul 2002 16:57:29 +0100
To: "Wayne Steele" <xmlmaster@hotmail.com>
Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5by9ca8hzq.fsf@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>

"Wayne Steele" <xmlmaster@hotmail.com> writes:

> Is anyone else concerned about the language in the latest XPointer
> Last Call Working Draft that refers to XML Schema?
> 
> 
> "If the document has an XML Schema [XMLSchema] PSVI,..."
> 
> I know what a PSVI is, and how to get one. What I don't know is what
> it means for a document to "have" a PSVI, or how to determine if a
> document has one, or which PSVI to use if it has more than one.

I think it's pretty clear from what you've quoted above -- if the
document has been processed by some application which implements the
W3C XML Schema REC, then it will have a PSVI.  If it hasn't, it
won't.  End of story, no _requirement_ implied at all (that's why the
'If' is there').

> Remember that the xsi:schemalocation attribute is a "hint". There may
> be other hints, I may have my own ideas about what XML Schema is
> appropriate, or there may be no hints but a common understanding of
> what XML Schema I should use (perhaps in the software of some vendors).

Indeed the W3C XML Schema REC allows a wide range of latitude in how
users and applications and documents cooperate to determine what
schema to use for validity assessment.  So when you run e.g. an
XInclude processor over a document with XLinks using barename
XPointers, you will also want to specify what W3C XML Schema
processor, if any, you want involved in the process, and you will
furthermore want to specify its schema determination strategy.  This
of course feeds directly into the other thread running right now about
processing models and how to specify what processing you want, in what
order, with what resources.

> If XPointer is going to depend on XML Schema, it should do so in a
> well-specified way.

It doesn't, and the WG thought its non-dependency was already
well-specified by the phrase above.  Evidently we were wrong, and we
should probably clarify that W3C XML Schema processing is _not_
required for barename interpretation.

ht
-- 
  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
          W3C Fellow 1999--2002, part-time member of W3C Team
     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
	    Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
		     URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Wednesday, 17 July 2002 11:59:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:13:01 GMT