W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > December 2000

Re: SOM

From: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 12:48:06 -0800
Message-ID: <01c201c0660f$c1e64490$8cc36b83@develop.com>
To: "David Valera" <dvalera@pcl-hage.nl>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Valera" <dvalera@pcl-hage.nl>
To: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 6:21 AM
Subject: RE: SOM


> > Sorry to jump in at the end of this thread, I've been otherwise
> > occupied for the last few days, but this is too misleading to go
> > unchallenged: an XML Schema is _not_ an XML file.
>
> I got scared when I saw this...
>
> > One schema may
> > correspond to many schema documents, they are _not_ the same thing,
> > and cannot be made so.  Schemas involving more than one namespace are
> > of necessity represented by at least a pair of schema documents.
>
> But now I can relax. :-)

[MJG]
I may be about to frighten you again...

If you represent your schema as a schema document then if that schema
involves two namespaces then you will need ( at least ) two schema
documents, one for each namespace. However, the XML Schema spec does *not*
require that a schema *ever* be represented in an XML document. In fact it
is very careful to *never* state that you must represent XML Schemas as XML.
People are at liberty to construct a set of schema components from *any*
source. For example, some people are already generating XML schema
components from a database schema, others are generating schema components
from Java classes, etc...

Martin Gudgin
DevelopMentor
Received on Thursday, 14 December 2000 15:53:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:19 GMT