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

RE: clarification needed for include

• To: "Takuki Kamiya" <tkamiya@u...>, <www-xml-schema-comments@w...>, <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: clarification needed for include
• From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@b...>
• Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 08:51:30 -0500
• Thread-index: AcUiFlV0e5mCi61OSiecxc6w/Vc8uQAO/xYg
• Thread-topic: clarification needed for include

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Takuki Kamiya [mailto:tkamiya@u...] 
> Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 1:33 AM
> To: www-xml-schema-comments@w...; xml-dev@l...
> Subject:  clarification needed for include
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Section 4.2.1 in XML Schema Part 1 2nd Ed mentions in the 
> "schema representation constraint" section that:
> 
> "1.2 It resolves to a <schema> element information item in a 
> well-formed information set, which in turn corresponds to a 
> valid schema."
> (In http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#layer2)
> 
> It basically asserts that the schema document being included 
> has to be "valid". I am not so sure what this "valid" means.
> 
> Is it "valid" in terms of what? I guess it is probably meant 
> to be "valid" against the whole XML Schema specification.

Yes, that is correct. More specifically, it must be valid according to
the rules specified in "C.1 Validation Rules" in XML Schema Part 1 2nd
Edition.

> If it is the case there's another question.
> 
> Say for example, schema A includes schema B, and B uses a 
> component (eg. type definition) that is defined in schema A.
> 
> My question is: does schema B have to also "include" schema A?
> If B does not include A, then schema B is now "invalid" since 
> it does not validate as a stand-alone schema document because 
> some of the references (eg. type references) do not (cannot) 
> resolve without being aware of components in  schema A.

Schema B has to include Schema A - that is, Schema B must be able to
validate as a stand-alone schema.

However, regarding inclusion in an XML instance document (separate but
related issue) - if you had the following case:
		
	   includes		    includes
Schema A --------> Schema B --------> Schema C

Then in an XML instance document you would only need to list Schema A in
the "schemaLocation" attribute of the <include> element in the instance
document - that is, the schema processor is responsible for resolving
the reference of Schema C from Schema B. You would not be required to
list Schema B or Schema C in the "schemaLocation" attribute.

Kind Regards,
Joseph Chiusano
Booz Allen Hamilton
Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World
 
> I know I can experiment with the implementations, which I did 
> including ours and got different results. Only one 
> implementation required schema B to include A, but others did 
> not care about it.
> 
> Any comments are appreciated.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> -Takuki Kamiya (Fujitsu Software Corporation)
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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>
> 
> 

• Prev by Date: Re: A Question about name spaces..
• Next by Date: Re: Schema, BNF and parsing
• Previous by thread: clarification needed for include
• Next by thread: Is there a schema?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread