- From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 02:47:09 +0100
- To: "'Frank Merrow'" <fmerrow@qualcomm.com>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <3EC90934829C46DEBA95B1873F39BC4D@Sealion>
One solution to that kind of problem is to define an alternative format that can be described using XML Schema, and do your validation by transforming to the alternative format and validating that. Of course the problem is that any validation error messages are one step removed from the original. Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/ _____ From: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org [mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Frank Merrow Sent: 28 April 2008 01:50 To: Michael Kay; 'Frank Merrow'; xmlschema-dev@w3.org Subject: RE: Schema Newbie Boxed in a corner . . . At 12:20 AM 4/26/2008, Michael Kay wrote: Generally, that's not a good way of designing your XML, which explains why there is no way of describing your design in XML Schema. It's best to use element and attribute names to denote types, and element or attribute values to contain instance data. I was afraid that would be the answer . . . Unfortunately, the Application is up and running on hundreds of customer sites and dependent on the current setup. Rolling to something new will complicate things because we have to maintain backwards compatibility for systems with old data, but it think having a schema to verify additions is important enough we probably will bite the bullet and make the change. Thanks for confirming my fears. ;-) Frank
Received on Monday, 28 April 2008 01:47:46 UTC