Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: FW: Relax NG annoyances
 >>>Why aren't defined patterns named with QNames? ... >> >>How would this aid portability? > > > I'll give an (trivial) example that demonstrates. Say I want to > validate against a custom version of XHTML that supports XLink. I > include James Clark's Relax NG Schema for XHTML [1] and John Cowan's RNG > for XLink [2]. Both schemas are OK by themselves, however, including > them would give a conflict with start definitions and "title" > definitions. The start definition would be expected; however, the title > definition is not obvious - it's defined in a small module [3] among > *many* definitions [4]. If I was combining two large languages (such as > XHTML and MathML), then it would be hard to find all of the conflicting > names. Combining independently created schemas is an important requirement, but I don't think using QNames for definitions is the solution. For a start, note that using QNames for definitions wouldn't solve your XHTML+XLink problem for two reasons. First, the XHTML schema is written in a closed way and doesn't allow attributes from foreign namespaces. Second, an instance needs to be validated concurrently against both the XLink schema and the XHTML schema. What you need is a language that can say: to validate this instance, use the XLink schema to validate the complete instance and also use the XHTML schema to validate the instance after stripping out attributes from the XLink namespace. NRL [1] is designed to do this sort of thing. RELAX NG isn't intended to solve every validation problem by itself. For a case like combining XHTML and MathML, RELAX NG already provides a solution to avoid conflicting definition names. The solution is nested grammars. In RELAX NG, the grammar element is allowed anywhere not just at the top level. When a grammar element occurs inside another grammar element, the definitions in the nested grammar element are local to that grammar and don't conflict with the definitions in the containing grammar. Thus to make a XHTML+MathML schema, you can just do something like: <grammar> <include href="xhtml.rng"/> <define name="Inline.class" combine="choice"> <externalRef href="mathml.rng"/> </define> </grammar> In RELAX NG, <include> merges grammars, whereas <externalRef> is replaced by the pattern in the referenced file. So in this case, the result will be that MathML grammar will be nested inside the XHTML grammar, so the names in the MathML grammar will not conflict with the names in the XHTML grammar. RELAX NG also provides a <parentRef> element that allows nested grammars to selectively reference definitions from their parent grammars. It's a little like the block scoping found in many programming languages. There are a couple of reasons I don't think QNames for definitions are a good idea: - URIs and QNames make sense for global objects, but definitions are not global; they're local to a particular grammar. It would be a bit like using package names for local variables. - Some XML users make heavy use of XML namespaces; other XML users think they are an unnecessary complication don't want to have anything to do with them. RELAX NG is designed to work well for both kinds of user. (In contrast, NRL doesn't have this goal.) However, the need to combine schemas is not unique to XML namespace users. I might want to use a math schema inside a document schema and not use XML namespaces for either. Using QNames doesn't seem like a natural solution in a non-namespace environment. I think there is scope for improvement in RELAX NG in this area. At the moment, the only mechanisms for referencing grammars are <include> and <externalRef>. These mechanism both work by syntactically including the referenced grammar. This doesn't work for mutually recursive grammars. By contrast, the <ref> element can handle mutually recursive definitions, because it doesn't work at a purely syntactic level: it doesn't just replace the <ref> element by the content of the referenced definition. I think there's scope for a grammar reference mechanism that doesn't work just by syntactic inclusion; but how exactly it should work is something I haven't yet figured out. James [1] http://www.thaiopensource.com/relaxng/nrl.html 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
