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

Re: schemaLocation

From: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:40:22 -0000
Message-ID: <000e01c76a1b$64f6b6e0$c900a8c0@Codalogic>
To: "Bryan Rasmussen" <BRS@itst.dk>, "Mystra x64" <mystra_x64@fastmail.fm>
Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>

----- Original Message From: "Bryan Rasmussen" BRS@itst....

> I believe that to be extemely politically unworkable solution.
>
> The xml:schemaLocation I might agree if it was just
> xml:validationLocations="namespace schemalocation namespace shemalocation"
> but then this opens up problem with validation types not supported by 
> various
> processors.

Well, it's all hints anyway, so a particular processor not supporting a 
particular validator is not a critical problem.  Seems little different to 
today.  (Opening the schemalocation would tell you the schema language to 
use for the validation.)

> xml:type and xml:nil I think, being validation specific concepts should 
> not
> be put into the xml namespace. I believe you would get all sorts of rants
> from cranky smart people if you tried it.

I would argue that although these were initially defined in XML schema, it 
would seem that they have general applicability and that other schema 
languages would benefit from such constructs.  Rather than each schema 
language having to define their own variants (possibly with the same local 
name but in a different namespace), it makes sense to promote them to be an 
XML level feature rather than have them as a purely XSD schema feature.

Cheers,

Pete.
--
=============================================
Pete Cordell
Tech-Know-Ware Ltd
for XML to C++ data binding visit
http://www.tech-know-ware.com/lmx/
http://www.codalogic.com/lmx/
=============================================

To: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>; "Mystra x64" 
<mystra_x64@fastmail.fm>
Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 9:44 AM
Subject: SV: schemaLocation



>What would have been helpful I think is to either have predefined that 
>'xsi'

>is automatically known to all XML processors (without having to do an
>namespace declaration) or maybe even better, augment the xml namespace so
>that you could do:

> <stylesheet xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform"
>            xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
>            xml:schemaLocation="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform
>                                http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform.xsd
>                                http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml
>                                http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml.xsd">
>and:
>   xml:type
>   xml:nil


I believe that to be extemely politically unworkable solution.

The xml:schemaLocation I might agree if it was just
xml:validationLocations="namespace schemalocation namespace shemalocation"
but then this opens up problem with validation types not supported by 
various
processors.

xml:type and xml:nil I think, being validation specific concepts should not
be put into the xml namespace. I believe you would get all sorts of rants
from cranky smart people if you tried it.

Cheers,
Bryan Rasmussen
Received on Monday, 19 March 2007 11:40:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:56:12 UTC