W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > December 2005

RE: internal schema?

From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 15:48:39 -0000
To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "'C. M. Sperberg-McQueen'" <cmsmcq@acm.org>
Cc: <nagarajank@huawei.com>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E1EmYt9-00005y-1V@aji.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>

I also wonder why anyone wants to use inline schemas. If it's for creating a
PSVI, then fine; but if it's for validation, then what's the point? As a
document recipient, I want the document to be valid against a schema of my
choice, not against any old schema that the sender happens to choose.

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/ 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
> Sent: 14 December 2005 15:31
> To: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
> Cc: nagarajank@huawei.com; xmlschema-dev@w3.org
> Subject: Re: internal schema?
> 
> 
> Michael Sperberg-McQueen writes:
> 
> > 3 Normally, one would want to use inline schemas on just the 
> > payload, not on the entire XML document.
> 
> Yes.  Crucially, in case it's not obvious, the alternative 
> would be to 
> have the schema validating itself along with the rest of the 
> document, 
> since you've asked to have the schema in the element tree.
> 
> In the case of DTDs, XML gives you a place to put the internal subset 
> that's distinct from the element tree.  Unfortunately, XML is not 
> currently extensible in a way that would allow you to put an 
> XML Schema 
> (or RelaxNG or Schematron schema) as a true replacement for the DTD.
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn 
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2005 15:52:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:51 GMT