[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency] Fwd: [emergency-comment] CAP Normative Schema isimproperly defined
Gary, thanx for clarifying the actual issue you came across. Bob, Kon, Gary, et al: I have a question. Is this an issue with Axis (and potentially other Java development/assistance tools), or two different interpretations of the XML Schema spec (aka it wasn't clear on how to implement)? I would imagine we would want the normative XML Schema to be "correct" (well-formed and validated against the XML Schema schema). Allen On Mar 30, 2004, at 8:09 AM, Ham, Gary A wrote: > Kon, can you pass this on to the list since my mail seems to bounce > all the time. > > The reason for naming all types, including simple types, was two-fold. > 1. Other tools, particularly the Axis based tools we were using for > generating SOAP encoding skeletons/stubs from the schema, were choking > on any unnamed type. I suspect that your quick-fix would work for us > as well. > > 2. The justice schema, to which we have informally agreed to keep > "in-mind" as we do our work, has no anonymous types, and goes so far > as to name instance usage of some item that would appear to be usable > as simple types. > > In general, strong typing for standards is a good idea, I would not > object to actually adopting Kon's quick fix, if necessary. > > R/S > > > Gary Ham > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kon Wilms [mailto:kon.wilms@ndsamericas.com] > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 5:02 PM > To: R. Allen Wyke; Emergency TC > Subject: RE: [emergency] Fwd: [emergency-comment] CAP Normative Schema > isimproperly defined > > Some info from my side - > > Windows Borland tools for processing XML (the XML to recordset > translator > for C++/Delphi/etc.) require that simpletype be translated to > complextype. > This is a 'quick fix' but seems to work. For .NET, one of our guys is > rewriting the schema to make it work. There were also some case typos > in the > 1.0 spec (simpletype vs. simpleType - strongly 'typed' parsers such as > the > latest .NET version will not validate the schema when case is > incorrect). > All of these use the MSXML DOM. > > Cheers > Kon > > > -----Original Message----- > From: R. Allen Wyke [mailto:emergency-tc@earthlink.net] > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 1:08 PM > To: Emergency TC > Subject: [emergency] Fwd: [emergency-comment] CAP Normative Schema is > improperly defined > > > Forwarding to the TC list for discussion.... > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: "Bob Wyman" <bob@wyman.us> >> Date: March 28, 2004 3:49:42 PM EST >> To: <emergency-comment@lists.oasis-open.org> >> Subject: [emergency-comment] CAP Normative Schema is improperly >> defined >> Reply-To: <bob@wyman.us> >> >> The normative XML Schema in the CAP specification is improperly >> defined and will either generate validation errors or be rewritten to >> a form which conforms to XML Schema when input to common XML >> Schema processing tools. A major source of the problems is the fact >> that what should be anonymous simple types in the CAP schema are >> encoded with "name" attributes and are thus not anonymous. For >> instance, the CAP schema defines the element msgType as: >> >> >> <element name = "msgType"> >> <simpleType name = "msgType" > >> <restriction base = "string"> >> ... >> </restriction> >> </simpleType> >> </element> >> >> A proper definition of the msgType element would *not* include the >> "name" attribute in the "simpleType" element. Thus, the proper >> definition would be: >> >> >> <element name = "msgType"> >> <simpleType> >> <restriction base = "string"> >> ... >> </restriction> >> </simpleType> >> </element> >> >> This improper use of XML Schema occurs at least 10 times in the CAP >> schema (I may have missed a couple...) >> Given that most well written XML Schema processors will rewrite or >> reject the normative CAP schema, it is hard to understand the >> justification for proposing a standard that contains a flawed >> normative definition. In this case, for interoperability to be had, it >> is necessary to assume that all XML Schema processors will either >> ignore or rewrite the offending elements of the schema in a consistent >> manner. While this appears to be the case so far, it introduces a risk >> of interpretation that is not appropriate for a standard such as CAP. >> For a standard such as CAP, it must be recognized that >> misinterpretations of CAP messages can lead to life-or-death >> consequences. Such a standard should only be accepted if it has >> achieved the highest possible levels of clarity and quality. >> >> bob wyman >> >> > > > *********************************************************************** > ************ > Information contained in this email message is intended only for use > of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message > is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to > deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any > dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is > strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, > please immediately notify the postmaster@nds.com and destroy the > original message. > *********************************************************************** > ************ > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster > of the OASIS TC), go to > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/members/ > leave_workgroup.php. > > -- R. Allen Wyke Chief Technology Officer awyke@blue292.com 919.806.2440
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]