- From: Vun Kannon, David <dvunkannon@kpmg.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:42:45 -0500
- To: "'www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org'" <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
If my schema contains <schema xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema" targetNamespace="myTest" > <element name="item"> <complexType> <attribute name="measure" type="QName"/> </complexType> </element> </schema> and my instance contains <item xmlns="myTest" xmlns:si="http://official.SI.org.fr/SI" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation=" myTest myTest.xsd http://official.SI.org.fr/SI si.xsd " measure="si:kilogram" /> and the SI schema contains <schema xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema" targetNamespace="http://official.SI.org.fr/SI" > <element name="kilogram"/> </schema> What should I expect from validation of the instance? I tested this situation with the Oracle validator, and it treated the type of the attribute as no better than string. It didn't try to resolve the namespace and check that the element existed in that namespace. Obviously, the validator does a much better job when it is reading the schema itself. There, a ref attribute with QName content is understood quite well. Are schema documents "special" in that the QName datatype works only within a document with that namespace? (If yes, where is that documented?) Or is the validator wrong, and not applying functionality that is at hand? Thanks, David vun Kannon KPMG Consulting, LLC ***************************************************************************** The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. When addressed to our clients any opinions or advice contained in this email are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing KPMG client engagement letter. *****************************************************************************
Received on Tuesday, 23 January 2001 11:43:21 UTC