- From: George Cristian Bina <george@oxygenxml.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 17:37:20 +0300
- To: Eric Sirois <esirois@ca.ibm.com>
- Cc: Zafar Abbas <Zafar.Abbas@microsoft.com>, "xmlschema-dev@w3.org" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Hi Eric, You need only the .NET 2.0 Framework. Best Regards, George --------------------------------------------------------------------- George Cristian Bina <oXygen/> XML Editor, Schema Editor and XSLT Editor/Debugger http://www.oxygenxml.com Eric Sirois wrote: > Hello George, > > Just to clarify. Do I need the .NET 2.0 Framework or the SDK in order for > oXygen to pick up the .NET 2.0 parser? > > 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. > > > > George Cristian > Bina > <george@oxygenxml To > .com> Eric Sirois/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA > cc > 04/18/2007 09:29 Zafar Abbas > AM <Zafar.Abbas@microsoft.com>, > "xmlschema-dev@w3.org" > <xmlschema-dev@w3.org> > Subject > 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 14:37:27 UTC