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

Re: PSVI: {document} property

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 05 Sep 2002 11:18:27 +0100
To: Elena Litani <elitani@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5bwuq0pwng.fsf@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>

Elena Litani <elitani@ca.ibm.com> writes:

> The definition for {namespace schema information information items} [1]
> includes 3 properties - {schema namespace}, {schema components}, {schema
> documents}. The XML Schema Recommendation specifies that the {schema
> components} property could be empty:
> [[
> The {schema components} property is provided for processors which wish
> to provide a single access point to the components of the schema which
> was used during assessment. Lightweight processors are free to leave it
> empty.. 
> ]]
> 
> On the other hand, the specification seems to require that the
> {documents} property should be exposed by all (including lightweight)
> processors. Since exposing schema documents is as expensive as exposing
> schema components, this requirement seems unreasonable, thus looks as a
> bug in the spec.

Um, have you looked at what the [schema documents] property requires
for its _value_?  It's a list of 'schema document' infoitems, and a
'schema document' in turn has two properties:

  [document location] Either a URI reference, if available, otherwise absent
  [document] A document information item, _if available_ [my italics], 
              otherwise absent

So a lightweight processor can tell me where it found documents, but
doesn't have to build and/or expose an infoset for them.  What's
expensive about that?

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 Thursday, 5 September 2002 06:18:31 GMT

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