W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > June 2002

Re: [xml-dev] (more details) embedding xml schema in an instance doc

From: P.J. Schwartz <peej@mindspring.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:25:27 -0400
Message-ID: <002b01c2121c$ff96c390$66575bd8@pj>
To: "Xan Gregg" <xan@tibco.com>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, "'Dare Obasanjo'" <dareo@microsoft.com>
Cc: <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>

Hi again,

So just to make sure I have it straight...the sForS should be able to be
validated based on the recent work of the WG.  If it is not currently
validated, by say Xerces, its because Xerces is a bit behind on the latest
changes/specs.  However, in order to embed XML Schema elements within an XML
*instance* document now, either the parser of choice must validate the
schema and/or import the schema as a workaround (as Dare suggested) or be
set to not validate said instance document at all.  Given this, do you think
its a safe bet to not validate now with the hopes that future revs of Xerces
will function as expected (i.e. parse and validate the sForS)?

Thanks,
P.J.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
To: "Xan Gregg" <xan@tibco.com>
Cc: "'Dare Obasanjo'" <dareo@microsoft.com>; <peej@mindspring.com>;
<xml-dev@lists.xml.org>; <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] (more details) embedding xml schema in an instance
doc


> Thank you Xan, my apologies to Dare and John, my memory is a sieve, I
> obviously lost the argument in the WG, and the resolution is to
> special-case the sForS.
>
> Sorry for the temporary (I hope) confusion I've caused.
>
> 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, 12 June 2002 10:27:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:31 GMT