[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Re: Language Theorie concerning XML Schema (heavy,atleast

• To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@i...>
• Subject: Re: Re: Language Theorie concerning XML Schema (heavy,atleast to me)
• From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>
• Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:53:08 -0700
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <f5br7gu3m9w.fsf_-_@e...>
• References: <BBF4F4DF-0DDA-4E82-8F7C-8F80EA8E3856@h...> <1114548194.9178.165.camel@l...> <426F1628.6030201@m...> <642f07b6050427215328609939@m...> <427070FB.8030806@a...> <642f07b60504280007377ba5ac@m...> <642f07b60504280307755d53e@m...> <f5bd5sf6vm5.fsf@e...> <4270FECE.7050709@o...> <f5br7gu3m9w.fsf_-_@e...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)

Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> Bob Foster writes:
>>Hmm. XercesJ reports three errors (not warnings) from this schema of
>>the form:
>>
>>Error - src-resolve: Cannot resolve the name 'unknownX' to a(n) 'type
>>definition' component.
>>
>>Where X is one of: 1, 2, 3;
> 
> How did you invoke Xerces?

Um, cut & paste. Perhaps you mean why? Because I've seen it flag 
dangling references before and wanted to check my own sanity.

> I'm not a Xerces user, but I am pretty
> sure the REC says that instance is schema valid per the schema
> corresponding to that schema doc.
> 
> It's also true that that schema is not 'complete' or 'self-contained',
> but it's not broken as such.  The REC is very clear that dangling
> references that aren't needed for validation are not an error.

Oh, is that the point the REC is very clear on? ;-}

I apologize for that. Seriously, XercesJ is a very widely used parser 
and the example wasn't in any way an obscure corner case. I hate to pick 
on you while you're trying to help out a user, but this doesn't 
reinforce the notion that conformance issues are largely behind us.

Bob Foster

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Re: Language Theorie concerning XML Schema (heavy,at least to me)
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
  • Re: Re: Language Theorie concerning XML Schema (heavy,atleast to me)
    • From: ht@i... (Henry S. Thompson)
  • Re: Re: Language Theorie concerning XML Schema (heavy,atleast to me)
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>

• References:
  • XSD spec question
    • From: Chris Griffin <cgriffin@h...>
  • Re: XSD spec question
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • Re: XSD spec question
    • From: Razvan MIHAIU <mihaiu@m...>
  • Re: XSD spec question
    • From: Gregor <iamgregor@g...>
  • Re: XSD spec question
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>
  • Language Theorie concerning XML Schema (heavy, at least to me)
    • From: Gregor <iamgregor@g...>
  • Re: Language Theorie concerning XML Schema (heavy, at least to me)
    • From: ht@i... (Henry S. Thompson)
  • Re: Re: Language Theorie concerning XML Schema (heavy,at least to me)
    • From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>
  • Re: Re: Language Theorie concerning XML Schema (heavy,atleast to me)
    • From: ht@i... (Henry S. Thompson)

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: Language Theorie concerning XML Schema (heavy, at least to me)
• Next by Date: Re: Re: Language Theorie concerning XML Schema (heavy,atleast to me)
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: Language Theorie concerning XML Schema (heavy,atleast to me)
• Next by thread: Re: Re: Language Theorie concerning XML Schema (heavy,atleast to me)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread