W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > April 2007

Re: redefine and interoperability problems

From: George Cristian Bina <george@oxygenxml.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 17:37:20 +0300
Message-ID: <46262D20.7030100@oxygenxml.com>
To: Eric Sirois <esirois@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: Zafar Abbas <Zafar.Abbas@microsoft.com>, "xmlschema-dev@w3.org" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>

Hi Eric,

You need only the .NET 2.0 Framework.

Best Regards,
George
---------------------------------------------------------------------
George Cristian Bina
<oXygen/> XML Editor, Schema Editor and XSLT Editor/Debugger
http://www.oxygenxml.com


Eric Sirois wrote:
> Hello George,
> 
> Just to clarify.  Do I need the .NET 2.0 Framework or the SDK in order for
> oXygen to pick up the .NET 2.0 parser?
> 
> Kind regards,
> Eric
> Eric A. Sirois
> Staff Software Developer
> DB2 Universal Database - Information Development
> DITA Migration and Tools Development
> IBM Canada Ltd. - Toronto Software Lab
> Email: esirois@ca.ibm.com
> Blue Pages (Internal)
> 
> "Transparency and accessibility requirements dictate that public
> information and government
> transactions avoid depending on technologies that imply or impose a
> specific product or
> platform on businesses or citizens" - EU on XML-based office document
> formats.
> 
> 
>                                                                            
>              George Cristian                                               
>              Bina                                                          
>              <george@oxygenxml                                          To 
>              .com>                     Eric Sirois/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA       
>                                                                         cc 
>              04/18/2007 09:29          Zafar Abbas                         
>              AM                        <Zafar.Abbas@microsoft.com>,        
>                                        "xmlschema-dev@w3.org"              
>                                        <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>              
>                                                                    Subject 
>                                        Re: redefine and interoperability   
>                                        problems                            
>                                                                            
>                                                                            
>                                                                            
>                                                                            
>                                                                            
>                                                                            
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Eric,
> 
> If you have .NET 2.0 installed on that machine oXygen should use that.
> 
> Best Regards,
> George
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> George Cristian Bina
> <oXygen/> XML Editor, Schema Editor and XSLT Editor/Debugger
> http://www.oxygenxml.com
> 
> 
> Eric Sirois wrote:
>> Hello Zafar,
>>
>> I'm using Oxygen 8.1.  It looks like it using .NET 1.1. I'm not sure how
> or
>> if  I can change the parser to .NET 2.0.  If someone know how, that would
>> be great.  Otherwise, I'm stuck with what it provides, for now.
>>
>> Eric
>> Eric A. Sirois
>> Staff Software Developer
>> DB2 Universal Database - Information Development
>> DITA Migration and Tools Development
>> IBM Canada Ltd. - Toronto Software Lab
>> Email: esirois@ca.ibm.com
>> Blue Pages (Internal)
>>
>> "Transparency and accessibility requirements dictate that public
>> information and government
>> transactions avoid depending on technologies that imply or impose a
>> specific product or
>> platform on businesses or citizens" - EU on XML-based office document
>> formats.
>>
>>
>>
> 
>>              Zafar Abbas
> 
>>              <Zafar.Abbas@micr
> 
>>              osoft.com>
> To
>>                                        Eric Sirois/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA,
> 
>>              04/13/2007 08:01          Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
> 
>>              PM
> cc
>>                                        "'W. Eliot Kimber'"
> 
>>                                        <ekimber@innodata-isogen.com>,
> 
> Subject
>>                                        RE: redefine and interoperability
> 
>>                                        problems
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>
>>
>>
>> Eric,
>> The circular group reference error you are seeing in .NET would be with
>> .NET 1.1. This issue has been fixed in .NET 2.0 where you should not see
>> that error. Let me know if you have any questions.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Zafar Abbas
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org [mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org]
> On
>> Behalf Of Eric Sirois
>> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 6:59 AM
>> To: Michael Kay
>> Cc: 'W. Eliot Kimber'; xmlschema-dev@w3.org
>> Subject: RE: redefine and interoperability problems
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, for the DITA XML Schemas  we had to make use of
>> <xs:redefine> in order to replicate substitutionGroups to avoid making
> use
>> of XML Schema inheritance mechanism.  At the moment, there are two issues
>> with make it hard for folks to use of the mechanism across most/all XML
>> parsers.  It's mainly the inconsistency between implementations.
>>
>> MSXML .NET - returns an error when including a self-reference to the
> group
>> when extending.
>> Xerces-C - must redefine the schema document where the component to be
>> redefined is defined.  There is a bug against Xerces-J open at the moment
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XERCESJ-1219.
>>
>> This defect will make Xerces-C and Xerces-J behave in the same manner -
>> redefine before it's included.  Jirka's example using Xerces-C would
> thrown
>> an error stating something to the effect that the component is defined in
>> the schema document that is referenced.
>>
>> I've asked our XML Schema representative to add some clarification to
> spec
>> regarding the order in which need to occur when redefining components.
>> (redefine/include vs. include/redefine).  It may be that once the spec
> has
>> a bit more clarity this defect will away or there will a lot of users who
>> will have schemas that are no longer valid.
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Eric
>> Eric A. Sirois
>> Staff Software Developer
>> DB2 Universal Database - Information Development
>> DITA Migration and Tools Development
>> IBM Canada Ltd. - Toronto Software Lab
>> Email: esirois@ca.ibm.com
>> Blue Pages (Internal)
>>
>> "Transparency and accessibility requirements dictate that public
>> information and government
>> transactions avoid depending on technologies that imply or impose a
>> specific product or
>> platform on businesses or citizens" - EU on XML-based office document
>> formats.
>>
>>
>>
>>              "Michael Kay"
>>              <mike@saxonica.co
>>              m>
> To
>>                                        "'W. Eliot Kimber'"
>>              04/05/2007 04:41          <ekimber@innodata-isogen.com>,
>>              AM                        <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
>>
> cc
>>                                        Eric Sirois/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
>>
> Subject
>>                                        RE: redefine and interoperability
>>                                        problems
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> I personally think xs:redefine is one of those facilities
>>> (xsi:nil is
>>>> another) where you're better off pretending it doesn't exist.
>>>> Implementors don't have that luxury, but users do.
>>> Hmm. The DITA schemas depend entirely on xs:redefine in order
>>> to provide the equivalent configurability to the parameter
>>> entities in the DTD versions, that is, using schemas can
>>> redefine the members of groups that are then referenced from
>>> the used schemas.
>> I have successfully tackled that problem by writing code that transforms
>> schemas (or near-schemas) to provide the configurability. I think it's
>> better to have this kind of capability in a separate language (indeed, a
>> separate architectural component of the system) rather than building in
>> self-modification semantics to the language itself.
>>
>> I would have thought that the configurability you describe above could be
>> achieved by the even simpler technique of URI-switching - that is,
>> redirecting the URI in an xs:include to refer to a selected variant of
> the
>> included module.
>>
>> xs:redefine is particularly horrible once schemas start to have wider
> scope
>> than a single validation episode, specifically, when multiple variants of
> a
>> schema component have to coexist. In particular, if you've got an XML
>> database whose contents are described by a family of schemas, the notion
>> that xs:redefine is "pervasive" could be taken to mean that it
> effectively
>> alters schemas that are used in a quite unrelated part of the database,
>> including schemas describing documents that were stored years ago. That's
>> clearly untenable; but finding a different definition of "pervasive" that
>> actually works in this environment isn't easy. Saxon's approach is to say
>> that once a schema component has been "used" (in some carefully defined
>> sense) further redefinition is banned.
>>
>> (Having said that, this problem affects any technique that leaves you
> with
>> multiple versions or variants of a schema component coexisting. I think
>> Roger Needham once said that all problems in computer science can be
> solved
>> by adding another level of indirection; and certainly the problem of
>> handling multiple coexisting versions of schema components appears
>> insoluble
>> without adding a version/variant qualifier to the name of the component.)
>>
>> Michael Kay
>> http://www.saxonica.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:37:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:59 GMT