Hi Noah, On 15/02/2008, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com> wrote: > I think the point is that XML Schema has a uniform way of reflecting > validation results, and the proposed xs:assertion mechanism uses that in a > consistent manner. I think assertions are different because an assert either passes or fails - there is no clue as to why it failed - the other at least mention content model or type etc. > Note that in many cases XSD validators are embedded in > other programs. Sometimes having a textual error message as in schematron > is helpful, but often programs prefer programmatic interfaces. While XSD > does not mandate any particular API for such purposes, it is intended to > support use through APIs. In this particular case I just want to give someone an XSD and say "make sure the XML you provide validates against that"... When something fails validation it would be useful to present them with a business rule in plain English rather than the XPath. > Another complication with error messages is the > potential requirement in some situations to allow messages to be provided > in multiple languages, such as English, French and Chinese. As has been > noted, use of <xs:annotation> on assertions is a potential building block > for hanging textual descriptions onto assertions, should you wish to. How about an optional repeatable element: <xs:assert test="..."> <xs:msg lang="en UK">If a = 1 then b must also be 1</xs:msg> <xs:msg lang="de DE">Guten tag!</xs:msg> The distinction being xs:annotation is aimed at the schema maintainer, the assert failure message is for the schema user. Just some thoughts. -- Andrew Welch http://andrewjwelch.com Kernow: http://kernowforsaxon.sf.net/Received on Monday, 18 February 2008 11:57:23 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 16 March 2009 11:13:40 GMT