RE: restriction question

Both schemas had elementFormDefault set to unqualified, and that error
message was the result.


-calvin

On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Dare Obasanjo wrote:

>
> elementFormDefault should be unqualified in both schemata or the types
> in your complex type's content model should reference the same ones.
>
> --
> PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
> He who laughs last didn't catch on very fast, did he?
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Calvin Smith [mailto:calvins@SIMS.Berkeley.EDU]
> > Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 5:08 PM
> > To: Dare Obasanjo
> > Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: restriction question
> >
> >
> > Thanks, Dare.  I tried setting elementFormDefault to
> > unqualified (I think you meant either/or with the two
> > suggestions), and then Xerces complains
> > that:
> >
> > Error:  org.xml.sax.SAXParseException:
> > cvc-complex-type.2.4.a: Invalid content starting with element
> > 'State'. The content must match '(("":State),("":Country))'.
> >
> > This is because of the default namespace, right?
> >
> > What I would like to do is restrict a type from a foreign
> > schema/namespace
> > -- which I have no control over -- in a namespace that I do
> > have control over, and I would like to have the default
> > namespace be equal to the target namespace in my schema.  Is
> > this possible?  If I have understood you properly, then this
> > isn't possible if the foreign namespace schema has
> > elementFormDefault set to 'qualified'. Is this correct?  Do I
> > have to not use the xmlns=targetNamespace?
> >
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > calvin
> >
> > On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> >
> > > Your schema is invalid and the reason is given in the error message
> > > provided by Xerces which has nothing to do with the types being in
> > > different namespaces. Although the problem is due to namespaces.
> > >
> > > Both schemas define local elements yet set
> > > elementFormDefault="qualified". This means that the Street,
> > State and
> > > Country elements in schema 1 are from the
> > http://www.test.com/sample
> > > namespace while the State and Country elements in schema 2 are from
> > > the http://www.test.com/sample2 namespace. Thus
> > SimplerAddressType is
> > > not a valid restriction of AddressType. To solve this
> > problem you can
> > > do two things
> > >
> > > 1.) Change the value of elementFormDefault to unqualified
> > or remove it
> > > entirely since the default is unqualified.
> > >
> > > 2.) Define the Street, State and Country in a single schema
> > [in schema
> > > 1, schema 2 or a new one] and reference those types from
> > your complex
> > > type definitions.
> > >
> > > --
> > > PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
> > > He who laughs last didn't catch on very fast, did he?
> > >
> > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> > > rights.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Calvin Smith [mailto:calvins@SIMS.Berkeley.EDU]
> > > > Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 4:23 PM
> > > > To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
> > > > Subject: restriction question
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Is it possible to derive by restriction, where the
> > derived type is
> > > > in a different namespace than the base type?  The spec, at 3.9.6,
> > > > doesn't explicitly say, so I think it's probably okay.  Xerces2,
> > > > however, complains that it isn't a valid restriction.
> > > >
> > > > This illustrates the problem:
> > > >
> > > > schema 1:
> > > >
> > > > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> > > > <xsd:schema targetNamespace="http://www.test.com/sample"
> > > > xmlns="http://www.test.com/sample"
> > > > xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
> > > > elementFormDefault="qualified" attributeFormDefault="unqualified">
> > > >   <xsd:complexType name="AddressType">
> > > >     <xsd:sequence>
> > > >       <xsd:element name="Street" type="xsd:string" minOccurs="0"/>
> > > >       <xsd:element name="State" type="xsd:string" minOccurs="0"/>
> > > >       <xsd:element name="Country" type="xsd:string"
> > minOccurs="0"/>
> > > >     </xsd:sequence>
> > > >   </xsd:complexType>
> > > > </xsd:schema>
> > > >
> > > > schema2:
> > > >
> > > > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> > > > <xsd:schema xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
> > > > elementFormDefault="qualified" attributeFormDefault="unqualified"
> > > > xmlns:s="http://www.test.com/sample"
> > > > targetNamespace="http://www.test.com/sample2"
> > > > xmlns="http://www.test.com/sample2" >
> > > >   <xsd:import namespace="http://www.test.com/sample"
> > > > schemaLocation="sample.xsd"/>
> > > >   <xsd:complexType name="SimplerAddressType">
> > > >     <xsd:complexContent>
> > > >       <xsd:restriction base="s:AddressType">
> > > >         <xsd:sequence>
> > > >           <xsd:element name="State" type="xsd:string"/>
> > > >           <xsd:element name="Country" type="xsd:string"/>
> > > >         </xsd:sequence>
> > > >       </xsd:restriction>
> > > >     </xsd:complexContent>
> > > >   </xsd:complexType>
> > > >   <xsd:element name="Address" type="SimplerAddressType"/>
> > > > </xsd:schema>
> > > >
> > > > And the instance document:
> > > >
> > > > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> > > > <Address xmlns="http://www.test.com/sample2"
> > > > xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
> > > > xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.test.com/sample2 sample2.xsd">
> > > >   <State>Ontario</State>
> > > >   <Country>Canada</Country>
> > > > </Address>
> > > >
> > > > Xerces issues the following error message upon trying to validate
> > > > the instance document against schema2:
> > > >
> > > > Error:  org.xml.sax.SAXParseException: rcase-Recurse.2:
> > There is not
> > > > a complete functional mapping between the particles .
> > > > Error:  org.xml.sax.SAXParseException:
> > > > derivation-ok-restriction.5.3: Error for type
> > 'SimplerAddressType'.
> > > > The particle  of the type is not a valid restriction of
> > the particle
> > > > of the base.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I read what I thought was the relevant part of the schema
> > (3.9.*),
> > > > and it seemed like this is derivation is okay, but Xerces doesn't
> > > > like it, and a similar kind of restriction was giving XML Spy
> > > > trouble, too.
> > > >
> > > > Any advice?
> > > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > >
> > > > calvin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

Received on Monday, 22 July 2002 20:20:28 UTC