- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 05 Sep 2002 11:18:27 +0100
- To: Elena Litani <elitani@ca.ibm.com>
- Cc: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Elena Litani <elitani@ca.ibm.com> writes: > The definition for {namespace schema information information items} [1] > includes 3 properties - {schema namespace}, {schema components}, {schema > documents}. The XML Schema Recommendation specifies that the {schema > components} property could be empty: > [[ > The {schema components} property is provided for processors which wish > to provide a single access point to the components of the schema which > was used during assessment. Lightweight processors are free to leave it > empty.. > ]] > > On the other hand, the specification seems to require that the > {documents} property should be exposed by all (including lightweight) > processors. Since exposing schema documents is as expensive as exposing > schema components, this requirement seems unreasonable, thus looks as a > bug in the spec. Um, have you looked at what the [schema documents] property requires for its _value_? It's a list of 'schema document' infoitems, and a 'schema document' in turn has two properties: [document location] Either a URI reference, if available, otherwise absent [document] A document information item, _if available_ [my italics], otherwise absent So a lightweight processor can tell me where it found documents, but doesn't have to build and/or expose an infoset for them. What's expensive about that? ht -- Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh W3C Fellow 1999--2002, part-time member of W3C Team 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Thursday, 5 September 2002 06:18:31 UTC