Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: [xsd] Guidelines [was: [xsd] Schema in multiple documents]
 If you plan to use the same target namespace for all documents then I'd suggest that you have a single schema document which references all the other schema documents and use that for validation. Since all the schema documents use the same target namespace they logically are a single schema which just happens to be broken up physically across multiple files. In the scenario below I'd either use C or FF as the main document which includes all the others or create a new schema document whose purpose is too include all the others. PS: Current versions of the XML schema validator in the .NET Framework has problems with diamond (A references B & C which both reference D) and circular imports which you should take note off if you will be validating documents on that platform. -- PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM Eat right, Exercise, Die anyway. ________________________________ From: Chizzolini Stefano [mailto:chist@c...] Sent: Sat 12/18/2004 1:20 AM To: xml-dev@l... Subject: [xsd] Guidelines [was: [xsd] Schema in multiple documents] Thanks, Masaaki. Yeah, I read Kohsuke Kawaguchi's famous article on xml.com (http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2001/06/06/schemasimple.html) about one year ago, but I do not agree with several considerations of his own: my opinion adheres to the counterpoint proposed by Dare Obasanjo (http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/11/20/schemas.html) on xml.com and then on MSDN (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnxml/html /xmlschemacomplex.asp). Each mind sits upon its favourite niche and fits its environment so much as possible! I say: as Mr Kawaguchi is the guru of RELAX NG while Mr Obasanjo is a first-class employee at Microsoft (which massively supported the W3C XML Schema WG), what do you imagine would be their respective opinions? ;) Regards, Stefano > -----Messaggio originale----- > Da: Masaaki KOGA [SMTP:koga@a...] > Inviato: venerdì 17 dicembre 2004 3.33 > A: Chizzolini Stefano > Cc: xml-dev@l... > Oggetto: Re: [xsd] Schema in multiple documents > > Hello Chizzolini, > > I'm trying to use XML Schema(XSD) too. > > There are many ways to define a schema with XSD. > the following URL is the article about 'how to avoid the pitfalls'. > > http://www.kohsuke.org/xmlschema/XMLSchemaDOsAndDONTs.html > > That maybe help you. > > And also, there are many practical XSDs. > As I know, it seems the best practice is as following sample. > > http://www.rosettanet.org/PIP7C7 > (download zip file, then extract > and find root xsd file in 'XML/Interchange' directory) > > That is the standarized xml based message schema about > notifing of Semiconductor Test Data. That design is 'Modular based'. > I think that is a good sample for designing XSD. > > Regards, > > Masaaki KOGA > > > On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:50:06 +0100 > Chizzolini Stefano <chist@c...> wrote: > > > Hi all > > > > I'm defining a schema (via XML Schema) stretched over multiple > documents, > > but I feel quite unsure about the best strategy to reference its > definitions > > each other across the file boundaries. > > What I need is a clean method to enable the reuse of components. > > > > As I know, there are mainly two constructs from the XSD namespace for > this > > purpose: > > - include element: same target namespace as the including document; > > - import element: any target namespace. > > (I chose the include element as it seems to fit my case). > > > > My headache comes when I try to establish WHICH document references WHAT > > ELSE. > > > > For example (the target namespace is the same for all the documents): > > - document A contains common types (it could be considered the main > document > > for the target namespace); > > - document B contains derived types; > > - document C contains other basic (non-derived) types; > > - documents FF are future extensions of the target namespace. > > Document A should be reused by B and FF. > > > > Should I: > > - include A inside B and FF, whilst C inside A? This way all the common > > components are centrally referenced by A, while any extension document > (B or > > FF) has just to care about referencing the main document (A). This > should > > improve the referential consistency and smooth expandability, but forces > any > > instance document to reference the location of a specific "leaf" schema > > document (I say, B or FF) as the main document (A) isn't aware about any > > extension document (it has just references to basic component documents > like > > C)! > > - include A inside B and FF, whilst B and FF and C inside A? This way > any > > instance document could reference just the main document (A) and use all > the > > derived types at a time, but the references across the schema documents > > would be multiplied and would cause circular references (is it legal? > may it > > affect the validator performance?). As another side effect, the main > > document should be updated any time an extension document is created. > > > > Which solution do you think that's better? > > Is there another (better) approach? > > > > Thanks for the tips! > > > > Stefano ----------------------------------------------------------------- The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php> 
|
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
|
|||||||||
