- From: Tolkin, Steve <Steve.Tolkin@FMR.COM>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 17:51:04 -0500
- To: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
I think it is very useful to have a simple explanation, e.g. "the content model is ambiguous, ...". I also think it is useful to include the URI. Even if the text pointed to by the URI is hard to understand it serves as a useful identifier. It will typically be shorter. It can be included in a bug report. It can be used to different tools (provided they emit it). It is language independent. (Of course different implementations might report different reasons for the same erroneous xml.) So if not too burdensome I suggest providing both error "messages", perhaps with an option to control whether one or both is produced. Hopefully helpfully yours, Steve --- Steven Tolkin There is nothing so practical as a good theory. Comments are by me, not Fidelity Investments, its subsidiaries or affiliates. -----Original Message----- From: Michael Kay [mailto:mike@saxonica.com] Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 12:05 PM To: 'George Cristian Bina'; d_a_carver@yahoo.com Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org Subject: RE: xs:choice and xs:sequence question > oXygen reports the error with a link to the specification > related with that: > http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#cos-nonambig A tangential remark: I wonder how useful this is? I know Appendix C says that validity errors "should" be reported citing the chapter and verse of the spec, but is there really any serious prospect that the average schema author will get any value from this? Your link points to the sentence: "A content model must be formed such that during .validation. of an element information item sequence, the particle component contained directly, indirectly or .implicitly. therein with which to attempt to .validate. each item in the sequence in turn can be uniquely determined without examining the content or attributes of that item, and without any information about the items in the remainder of the sequence." I suspect most users can't even parse the syntax of this sentence, let alone understand what it means. I decided in Saxon that there wasn't any point in referring people to the spec, and instead try to explain what's wrong in my own words. In this case you will get a message to the effect: "the content model is ambiguous, <elementname> appears in more than one place". Any views on this from users? Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/
Received on Thursday, 12 January 2006 22:51:16 UTC