Re: [docbook] DocBook XSD

[George Cristian Bina <george@oxygenxml.com>]

Hi Norm,

Congratulations!
Just a note on the Schematron schema. The pattenr/@name attribute was 
removed in ISO Schematron. In ISO Schematron there is a pattern/@id 
attribute but its type is ID. What you have in the @name attribute seems 
more like a short description that you should place inside a title 
element within the pattern, something like:

<s:pattern>
    <s:title>Only one kind of linking per element</s:title>
    <!-- "and" in the context is intentional -->
    <s:rule context="db:*[@linkend and @xlink:*]">
      <s:assert test="not(@linkend) or not(@xlink:*)">@linkend cannot 
be combined with XLink.</s:assert>
    </s:rule>
</s:pattern>

and so on.

Best Regards,
George
--
George Cristian Bina
<oXygen/> XML Editor, Schema Editor and XSLT Editor/Debugger
http://www.oxygenxml.com

On 12/8/11 12:28 AM, Norman Walsh wrote:
> Hello world,
>
> For years, my plan has been to generate XSD files from the DocBook
> RELAX NG sources. The best plaid plans of mice and men, as they say,
> are about equal. After some promising forays, and enormous amounts of
> fruitless effort, I've given up.
>
> My new plan is to craft the XSD by hand, maintaining it in parallel to
> the normative RELAX NG schema in wetware. For derived schemas, like
> Publishers, this will mean crafting two customization layers, one for
> RELAX NG and one for XSD. And I'm not quite sure what the XSD
> customization will look like. Probably something that uses xs:override
> (from XML Schema 1.1) and compiles down to XSD 1.0 via XSLT.
>
> Here are the first, crude attempts. I'm *sure* there are bugs in the
> XSD (I know there are issues with the placement of indexterms), but
> I'd welcome feedback anyway.
>
> docbook.xsd is a 1.1 schema
> docbook10.xsd is a 1.0 schema
> docbook-xsd.sch is a set of Schematron assertions
>
> In theory, if you validate with XSD then apply *both* the normal Schematron
> assertions provided with DocBook V5.0 *and* these additional assertions,
> you'd get within spitting distance of having the same level of validation
> as the RELAX NG. In practice, meh, use the %@#$!ing RELAX NG!
>
>
>
>
>
>                                          Be seeing you,
>                                            norm