Re: [emergency] Groups - EDXL-DE spec discussion materials ( EDXL_DE_materials.zip) uploaded

[Renato Iannella <renato@nicta.com.au>]

Hi David - the XML Schema for the 20-Jun-2005 document was posted here:

   <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/email/ 
archives/200506/msg00196.html>

In this schema, the XML Object element had the following datatype:


    <xs:complexType name="xmlObjectType">
         <xs:sequence>
            <xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="skip"/>
         </xs:sequence>
     </xs:complexType>

I agree that "lax" is a better for processContents (and min/maxOccurs  
are needed).

However, you define the namespace as "##targetNamespace" - which  
limits only to the EDXL namespace ?


Cheers - Renato


On Aug 7, 2005, at 8/7/05 9:20 AM, Ellis, David wrote:


> Art and TC
>
> The <contentObject> element or any of the elements you propose below
> need to have an attribute which defines a schema for the arbitrary
> elements which are used in the <contentObject> container element.
> Also, the <messageElement> is the container element for the
> <contentObject> and all metadata pulled from the <contentObject>  
> should
> be from the same schema.  By using the "##other" namespace  
> definition in
> the <messageElement>  all contained XML content can reference the
> redefined namespace by using the "##targetNamespace" attribute.
>
> <element name="messageElement" xmlns:me="##other">
>
> This allows the XML pulled from the <contentObject> to be used in the
> <keyXmlContent> .
>
> <element name="keyXmlContent" minOccurs="0">
>     <complexType>
>         <sequence>
>             <any namespace="##targetNamespace"
> processContents="lax" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" />
>         </sequence>
>     </complexType>
> </element>
>
> By using the "lax" processContents validation option if the schema is
> not available the parser will ensure the labeled elements are well
> formed and continue to process the XML.
>
> Therefore any arbitrary XML structure can be used and validated by the
> Parser (SAX, DOM etc.).  Because the schema defines the structure and
> value type for the contained elements, it is this schema and not the
> container element name which the parser must use for determining  
> how to
> process the content.  If we force developers to interpret an element
> from a choice and then parse and process this data in some special  
> way,
> I do not understand the benefit of this increased complexity and I am
> sure it will break receiving applications processing which  
> implement it
> differently.
>
> <element name="contentObject">
>     <complexType>
>         <sequence>
>             <any namespace="##targetNamespace"
> processContents ="lax" maxOccurs="unbounded" />
>         </sequence>
>     </complexType>
> </element>
>
> I have very strong experience to support my reasoning and this is
> similar to the method the SOAP schema allows for inserting  
> arbitrary XML
> content and still uses schema validation.  Please provide me your
> proposed schema for validating the elements you are proposing.  I am
> trying to complete the schema for the distribution element and need  
> your
> schema and subsequent XML documents to run thru validation tools.  We
> are tying to get the EDXL Distribution element out for public comment
> and need this soonest.
>
>
> David E. Ellis
> Information Management Architect
> (505) 844-6697
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email and any attachments may be confidential. They may contain legally
privileged information or copyright material. You should not read, copy,
use or disclose them without authorisation. If you are not an intended
recipient, please contact us at once by return email and then delete both
messages. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus,
data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised
amendment. This notice should not be removed.