Re: Include Problem with IBM SQC

"WATKIN-JONES,ADAM (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex1)" <adam_watkin-jones@hp.com> writes:

> Thanks Eric!
> 
> I'll have a close look at the link.  I think I do have a variable content
> problem - each including file needs to define different content for, in my
> example, the root element.
> 
> Indeed, TestCommon.xsd is invalid 'stand-alone'.  I have been looking at
> section 4.2.1 in XML Schema Part 1: Structures, where include is defined,
> and there is the following constraint:
> 
> "1 If the ·actual value· of the schemaLocation [attribute] successfully
> resolves one of the following must be true:
> 1.1 It resolves to (a fragment of) a resource which is an XML document (of
> type application/xml or text/xml with an XML declaration for preference, but
> this is not required), which in turn corresponds to a <schema> element
> information item in a well-formed information set, which in turn corresponds
> to a valid schema. 
> 1.2 It resolves to a <schema> element information item in a well-formed
> information set, which in turn corresponds to a valid schema."
> 
> So, my guess is that SQC is correct and MSXML and XSV are in error.
> 
> Could anyone confirm which is correct?

I believe MSXML and XSV are correct and SQC is incorrect.
TestCommon.xsd is a valid schema document (i.e. it conforms to the
sForS and doesn't violate any of the XML Repr constraints) and
furthermore it corresponds to a valid schema (i.e. one which doesn't
violate any of the Component constraints).  There is no notion in the
REC of 'stand-alone' schema validity.

It is true that if you tried to validate an instance with just
TestCommon.xsd, you might run in to trouble, but that's a separate
question, which can _only_ be answered in the presence of an actual
instance.

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 Friday, 6 September 2002 08:50:59 UTC