xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From <twle...@sauria.com>
Subject Re: Fw: schema question
Date Wed, 15 Dec 1999 21:39:34 GMT
Hi guys,

Yes, this is a bug.  There are a number of artifacts of the way that
the current schema support is implemented.  The next drafts will be
coming out soon, and there are going to be drastic changes required
to comply with them.  Fasten your seatbelts.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Steve Buroff 
To: general@xml.apache.org 
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: schema question

Thanks very much for all the help. I assume new versions of xml4j (or
should I say xerces) will be announced in the newsgroup and I'll certainly
keep up with the latest versions.

I'll look forward to your book to. If you want a proofreader, reviewer, etc.,
let me know.

Thanks again for all your help.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Brett McLaughlin 
To: general@xml.apache.org 
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 12:15 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: schema question

Steve Buroff wrote:
> Sorry about the bad mail format. I've never had the problem before.
> I'm using Outlook Express with IE 5.01. What are you reading your
> mail with?

Netscape.  Whatever you did that time worked, though...

> Thanks for the information. I wasn't even sure that what I had done
> was correct. I gather from your mail that it is correct but that xml4j
> hasn't implemented it yet. Makes me feel better.

Yup, your schema is 100% legal, has been since the beginning.

> Thanks for the workaround. Unfortunately, it doesn't work for me. Are
> you using xml4j 3.0.0 EA3? I've attached the modified schema file and
> the xml file. Unfortunately, it gets the same error. Does it work for
> you?

OK, my hack is actually sort of working... but it becomes useless as I
dug in further.

In mine, I defined OTHER with the implicit archetype, and made up an
element "DUMMY" to refer to it.  However, when you sent this back, I
looked further - I added DUMMY to the XML, and it broke (same thing - no
validator for dataype Other [which, interestingly, is the archetype, not
the element]).  So I revise my evaluation ;-)

Xerces seems to insist that for each validated element (i.e. it appears
in the XML), an implicit archetype must be defined.  This is a real pain
in the butt, I agree... i'm writing a book on XML and your use of XML
Schema is right on, but the support for it (as I mention in the book) is
just not there yet.  As much as it chafes, use DTDs for now, and keep up
on the XML Schema drafts.

> Steve


View raw message