Re: ISSUE-74: Relative URIs in targetNamespace schemaLocation

Hi Paul,

FWIW our tool parses schemas that have been downloaded to local disk.
(Officially I guess we'd call it a local schema cache - or whatever XSD
would call it.  The user specifies the set of files in the cache - main
schema and those that are imported - and the schemas are compiled from
there.)

BUT... xs:include is slightly different and the tool works out where the
file is from schemaLocation attribute (is that the one I mean?).  Hence
relative URIs work for us better in this context.

So (similar to Paul Kiel's message) from our point of view, relative URIs
would be better (Basic?) in xs:include.  We don't really care what they are
in any other place!

Pete.
--
=============================================
Pete Cordell
Tech-Know-Ware Ltd
for XML to C++ data binding visit
http://www.tech-know-ware.com/lmx
(or http://www.xml2cpp.com)
=============================================

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Databinding Issue Tracker" <dean+cgi@w3.org>
To: <public-xsd-databinding@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 9:51 PM
Subject: ISSUE-74: Relative URIs in targetNamespace schemaLocation


>
>
> ISSUE-74: Relative URIs in targetNamespace schemaLocation
>
> http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/databinding/issues/74
>
> Raised by: Paul Downey
> On product: Basic
>
> The interaction between relative URIs in schema/@targetNamespace and
> schema/[import|include]/@schemaLocation with @xml:base
> would appear to be likely to be problematic in some toolkits.
>
> Proposal: Absolute URIs are Basic, Relative URIs advanced.
>
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 19 October 2006 09:02:15 UTC