xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brett McLaughlin <bmcla...@algx.net>
Subject Re: Fw: schema question
Date Wed, 15 Dec 1999 17:15:49 GMT
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