- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:00:38 +0000
- To: <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
- Cc: <jddahl@micron.com>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
<Simon.Cox@csiro.au> writes:
> I'd like to back up Jeff's question.
See my preceding response.
> I tried this a few months ago and XML Spy also rejected it - it
> appears that (quite reasonably) the tools have their own "private"
> version of the S4S loaded, but this then causes a clash (multiple
> declarations of the same component), which results in the import of
> the S4S to fail and the components to *not* be available.
That seems the worst of both worlds, I agree.
> This is kinda frustrating. There should really be no reason that
> the S4S is treated any different to any other schema import. Surely
> this is why we choose to "eat our own dogfood". Similar to Jeff I
> want to be able to use the simpleType definitions to describe
> constraints on values within an instance document. I could subset
> the S4S and put it in a new namespace, but why should this be
> necessary.
For the simple types, you definitely do _not_ need an import or
xsi:schemaLocation -- e.g.
<foo xsi:type="xs:integer">37</foo>
is schema validatable as such with nothing but appropriate namespace
declarations.
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
Half-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 Tuesday, 11 November 2003 04:00:42 UTC