- From: Paul Kiel <paul@hr-xml.org>
- Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 15:45:15 -0400 (EDT)
- To: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <001001c255dd$e3553220$6401a8c0@pkiel2>
Greetings xmlschema-dev-ers, I believe I wrote about one of these situations before, but I thought I would add a second issue, and reiterate the first. It is regarding namespace coercion. I do like how powerful this technique is but find parser implementation maddeningly inconsistent. I have a suite of about a half dozen parsers that I test with to make sure our schemas are interoperable. However, they implement namespace coercion inconsistently. For other reasons, we are moving to a different namespace usage, but our experience has taught us some things about this technique that I wanted to share (and hopefully save others the manual hair loss at trying to figure this out). Here are the scenarios. Scenario 1 - one slave, two nested masters schema A (ns="A") imports B (ns="B") includes C (ns="") schema B (ns="B") includes C (ns="") In this case, you want schema C to be coerced into both the A namespace and B namespace in schema A. Some parsers coerce into both, others only into one of the namespaces. Scenario 2 - two slaves, one master schema D (ns="D") includes E (ns="") schema E (ns="") includes F (ns="") In this case, you simply want everything (E and F) to be coerced into the D namespace, the slaves are merely nested. Some parsers coerce both the nested dependents, others will only coerce the first level, or E only. FYI. Cheers, Paul Kiel HR-XML
Received on Saturday, 7 September 2002 09:14:14 UTC