- From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 12:41:15 +0100
- To: <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>, <public-xsd-databinding@w3.org>
Hi Pete I'd agree that a relative URI for schemaLocation is common, but I'm concerned about support for xml:base in conjunction with such URIs. How well is that likely to be supported? Maybe a good way forward would be to allow absolute URIs in @targetNamesapce, absolute and relative URIs in @schemaLocation, and warn about interactions with xml:base? Paul -----Original Message----- From: public-xsd-databinding-request@w3.org on behalf of Pete Cordell Sent: Thu 10/19/2006 10:02 AM To: Databinding WG Subject: 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 11:41:30 UTC