Re: redefine and interoperability problems

Hi Eric,

If you have .NET 2.0 installed on that machine oXygen should use that.

Best Regards,
George
---------------------------------------------------------------------
George Cristian Bina
<oXygen/> XML Editor, Schema Editor and XSLT Editor/Debugger
http://www.oxygenxml.com


Eric Sirois wrote:
> Hello Zafar,
> 
> I'm using Oxygen 8.1.  It looks like it using .NET 1.1. I'm not sure how or
> if  I can change the parser to .NET 2.0.  If someone know how, that would
> be great.  Otherwise, I'm stuck with what it provides, for now.
> 
> Eric
> Eric A. Sirois
> Staff Software Developer
> DB2 Universal Database - Information Development
> DITA Migration and Tools Development
> IBM Canada Ltd. - Toronto Software Lab
> Email: esirois@ca.ibm.com
> Blue Pages (Internal)
> 
> "Transparency and accessibility requirements dictate that public
> information and government
> transactions avoid depending on technologies that imply or impose a
> specific product or
> platform on businesses or citizens" - EU on XML-based office document
> formats.
> 
> 
>                                                                            
>              Zafar Abbas                                                   
>              <Zafar.Abbas@micr                                             
>              osoft.com>                                                 To 
>                                        Eric Sirois/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA,      
>              04/13/2007 08:01          Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>     
>              PM                                                         cc 
>                                        "'W. Eliot Kimber'"                 
>                                        <ekimber@innodata-isogen.com>,      
>                                                                    Subject 
>                                        RE: redefine and interoperability   
>                                        problems                            
>                                                                            
>                                                                            
>                                                                            
>                                                                            
>                                                                            
>                                                                            
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric,
> The circular group reference error you are seeing in .NET would be with
> .NET 1.1. This issue has been fixed in .NET 2.0 where you should not see
> that error. Let me know if you have any questions.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Zafar Abbas
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org [mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Eric Sirois
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 6:59 AM
> To: Michael Kay
> Cc: 'W. Eliot Kimber'; xmlschema-dev@w3.org
> Subject: RE: redefine and interoperability problems
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, for the DITA XML Schemas  we had to make use of
> <xs:redefine> in order to replicate substitutionGroups to avoid making use
> of XML Schema inheritance mechanism.  At the moment, there are two issues
> with make it hard for folks to use of the mechanism across most/all XML
> parsers.  It's mainly the inconsistency between implementations.
> 
> MSXML .NET - returns an error when including a self-reference to the group
> when extending.
> Xerces-C - must redefine the schema document where the component to be
> redefined is defined.  There is a bug against Xerces-J open at the moment
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XERCESJ-1219.
> 
> This defect will make Xerces-C and Xerces-J behave in the same manner -
> redefine before it's included.  Jirka's example using Xerces-C would thrown
> an error stating something to the effect that the component is defined in
> the schema document that is referenced.
> 
> I've asked our XML Schema representative to add some clarification to spec
> regarding the order in which need to occur when redefining components.
> (redefine/include vs. include/redefine).  It may be that once the spec has
> a bit more clarity this defect will away or there will a lot of users who
> will have schemas that are no longer valid.
> 
> 
> Kind regards,
> Eric
> Eric A. Sirois
> Staff Software Developer
> DB2 Universal Database - Information Development
> DITA Migration and Tools Development
> IBM Canada Ltd. - Toronto Software Lab
> Email: esirois@ca.ibm.com
> Blue Pages (Internal)
> 
> "Transparency and accessibility requirements dictate that public
> information and government
> transactions avoid depending on technologies that imply or impose a
> specific product or
> platform on businesses or citizens" - EU on XML-based office document
> formats.
> 
> 
> 
>              "Michael Kay"
>              <mike@saxonica.co
>              m>                                                         To
>                                        "'W. Eliot Kimber'"
>              04/05/2007 04:41          <ekimber@innodata-isogen.com>,
>              AM                        <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
>                                                                         cc
>                                        Eric Sirois/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
>                                                                    Subject
>                                        RE: redefine and interoperability
>                                        problems
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>> I personally think xs:redefine is one of those facilities
>> (xsi:nil is
>>> another) where you're better off pretending it doesn't exist.
>>> Implementors don't have that luxury, but users do.
>> Hmm. The DITA schemas depend entirely on xs:redefine in order
>> to provide the equivalent configurability to the parameter
>> entities in the DTD versions, that is, using schemas can
>> redefine the members of groups that are then referenced from
>> the used schemas.
> 
> I have successfully tackled that problem by writing code that transforms
> schemas (or near-schemas) to provide the configurability. I think it's
> better to have this kind of capability in a separate language (indeed, a
> separate architectural component of the system) rather than building in
> self-modification semantics to the language itself.
> 
> I would have thought that the configurability you describe above could be
> achieved by the even simpler technique of URI-switching - that is,
> redirecting the URI in an xs:include to refer to a selected variant of the
> included module.
> 
> xs:redefine is particularly horrible once schemas start to have wider scope
> than a single validation episode, specifically, when multiple variants of a
> schema component have to coexist. In particular, if you've got an XML
> database whose contents are described by a family of schemas, the notion
> that xs:redefine is "pervasive" could be taken to mean that it effectively
> alters schemas that are used in a quite unrelated part of the database,
> including schemas describing documents that were stored years ago. That's
> clearly untenable; but finding a different definition of "pervasive" that
> actually works in this environment isn't easy. Saxon's approach is to say
> that once a schema component has been "used" (in some carefully defined
> sense) further redefinition is banned.
> 
> (Having said that, this problem affects any technique that leaves you with
> multiple versions or variants of a schema component coexisting. I think
> Roger Needham once said that all problems in computer science can be solved
> by adding another level of indirection; and certainly the problem of
> handling multiple coexisting versions of schema components appears
> insoluble
> without adding a version/variant qualifier to the name of the component.)
> 
> Michael Kay
> http://www.saxonica.com/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 13:31:31 UTC