- From: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 09:50:06 -0700
- To: "Arnaud Blandin" <blandin@intalio.com>, "Mark Feblowitz" <mfeblowitz@frictionless.com>, <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Ted Toth" <ted.toth@vincera.com>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Castor is wrong. Your understanding of how schemas without an explicit target namespace work is similarly mistaken. -- PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side and a dark side, and it holds the universe together. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Arnaud Blandin [mailto:blandin@intalio.com] > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 11:52 PM > To: 'Mark Feblowitz'; ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk > Cc: 'Ted Toth'; xmlschema-dev@w3.org > > > Hi, > > I think I would drop you a note on the Castor behavior: > > Castor is right (please tell me here if I am wrong) since the > schema is missing an explicit targetNamespace so Castor > assumes that the targetNamespace is going to be > http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema and thus when resolving > 'ID', it will find {http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema}ID > which is a simpleType. Thus an exception is thrown. > Adding a targetNamespace to the XML Schema will fix the > problem, however I wonder if the XML type resolution > algorithm is correct and I couldn't find any hint in the spec. > > Thanks, > > Arnaud > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org [mailto:xmlschema-dev- > > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mark Feblowitz > > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 7:22 PM > > To: 'ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk' > > Cc: Ted Toth; xmlschema-dev@w3.org > > Subject: RE: A complex type cannot be a restriction of a > simpleType ?? > > > > > > It certainly looks that way. I wonder why there's confusion. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk [mailto:ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk] > > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 1:12 PM > > To: Mark Feblowitz > > Cc: Ted Toth; xmlschema-dev@w3.org > > Subject: Re: A complex type cannot be a restriction of a > > simpleType > > ?? > > > > Mark Feblowitz <mfeblowitz@frictionless.com> writes: > > > > > If that's the case, then the XML Spy folks need to be contacted, > > too. > > While > > > Spy does validate the schema in "Schema View" mode, in text view > > mode it > > > gives the following error: > > > > > > Schema error - undefined schema component "base" encountered - > > simpleContent > > > can not have a base that is a complexType with complexContent. > > > > But this is wrong -- element is a complexType with _simple_ > content, > > right? > > > > 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] > > Confidentiality Notice: This message, including any attachments, is > > intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is > addressed > > and may contain information that is privileged and > confidential. If > > you have received this email in error, please delete it. Any > > disclosure, copying or distribution of this message is strictly > > prohibited. Thank you. > >
Received on Tuesday, 8 October 2002 12:50:39 UTC