OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dita message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: DITA 1.1 XSDs validation using MSXML parser


During my testing I discovered that the MSXML .NET 1.1 XML parser does not
like the way the groups are redefined.  Their current redefinition
interpretation of the group does not follow the spec.
The basic expected behaviour is that is a redefined group includes a
self-reference, the parser should treat the additional element as an
extension to group.  If the group does not include a self-reference, the
parser should treat new group as a restriction of the base group.

Would it possible for someone on TC or who knows of someone who is more
familiar with the MS parser check to see if the DITA  Schemas are validate
with either the .NET 2.0 or MSXML 6.0?

For those who are interested/will be defining props-attribute-extensions or
base-attribute-extensions using the XML Schemas,  you will have to use the
same mechanism for integrating a domain in an information type, albeit
attributeGroups instead of groups.

There is a workaround available.   I understand that this may not
avoidable.  I would like to avoid having multiple sets of schemas that are
tweaked based on the parser.  I'm hoping the later version of the parser
fixes this inconsistency with the spec.

Kind regards,

Here is the snippet of  the XML Schema spec that defines how parser should
validate redefined groups:

Section 4.2.2 Including modified component definitions

6 Within the [children], for each <group> the appropriate case among the
following must be true:
  6.1 If it has a <group> among its contents at some level the ·actual
value· of whose ref [attribute] is the same as the ·actual value· of its
own name attribute plus target namespace, then all of the following must be
    6.1.1 It must have exactly one such group.
    6.1.2 The ·actual value· of both that group's minOccurs and maxOccurs
[attribute] must be 1 (or ·absent·).
  6.2 If it has no such self-reference, then all of the following must be
    6.2.1 The ·actual value· of its own name attribute plus target
namespace must successfully ·resolve· to a model group definition in I.
    6.2.2 The {model group} of the model group definition which corresponds
to it per XML Representation of Model Group Definition Schema Components
(§3.7.2) must be a ·valid restriction· of the {model group} of that model
group definition in I, as defined in Particle Valid (Restriction) (§3.9.6).

Eric A. Sirois
Staff Software Developer
DB2 Universal Database - Information Development
DITA Migration and Tools Development
IBM Canada Ltd. - Toronto Software Lab
Email: esirois@ca.ibm.com
Phone:(905) 413-2841
Blue Pages (Internal)

"Transparency and accessibility requirements dictate that public
information and government
transactions avoid depending on technologies that imply or impose a
specific product or
platform on businesses or citizens" - EU on XML-based office document

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]