- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 16:43:35 +0100
- To: "Hirtle, David" <David.Hirtle@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
- Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
"Hirtle, David" <David.Hirtle@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> writes:
> When I sent my original message to the list, the file b.xsd only used one
> <redefine>:
>
> <xs:redefine schemaLocation="a.xsd">
> <!-- add y to body -->
> <xs:group name="body.content">
> <xs:choice>
> <xs:group ref="body.content"/>
> <xs:element ref="y"/>
> </xs:choice>
> </xs:group>
>
> <!-- remove x from body by restriction -->
> <xs:group name="body.content">
> <xs:choice>
> <xs:element ref="y"/>
> </xs:choice>
> </xs:group>
> </xs:redefine>
>
> I created new files f.xsd, g.xsd (at http://www.ruleml.org/0.89/xsd) for this
> original example. Note that with this one <redefine>, XSV crashes:
> http://www.w3.org/2001/03/webdata/xsv?docAddrs=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ruleml.org%2F0.89%2Fexa%2Ffg.ruleml&style=xsl#
Hmph! Infinite loop :-(
>> The 'correct' way to do this is with _three_ files.
>
> Unfortunately XSV doesn't seem to like the three file way either:
None-the-less I think it's the only correct way.
Is redefining things really the logically correct way to think about
the underlying requirement?
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.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 Monday, 4 April 2005 15:43:40 UTC