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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

emergency message

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

Subject: Re: [emergency] EDXL DE - XML Schema Issue

On 10 Nov 2005, at 11:09, Sylvia Webb wrote:

> The documentation was verbose because that is the recommendation  
> for XML
> standards from ISO and UN/CEFACT. UBL uses these guidelines as  
> well. It is
> unusual that the documentation is exactly the same as the spec,  
> however, I
> believe this was a result of a lack of time.

UBL provides doco in some of the schemas because the UBL spec itself  
does not define
the elements. Hence, you need both. In our case, you don't.

> WRT errors from Spy and Oxygen, as a software vendor of XML  
> products, one of
> the things we have learned is that this is not unusual. The schema did
> validate with Xerces and I believe MVS. NIST has a free online  
> website for
> testing schema using 3 validates.  As a TC, we need to determine  
> how much QA
> we want to do, and, how we want to proceed if we find that well  
> known IDE's
> use a different or relaxed interpretation of the W3C spec that causes
> problems.

The W3C XML Schema spec (section 3.13.1) is clear that annotations do  
not participate
in validation BUT they must satisfy all schema component constraints.  
That is,
they must be well-formed. The EDXL DE schema annotations are not.

Hence, I think you will find that the commercial validators, like XML  
Spy, are
following the spec to the letter and the others you used are the  
"relaxed" ones.

> If Renato sends me his suggestions, I will do my best to  
> incorporate them.

The Schema needs to be rewritten. Not a big job, and I've almost  
in anticipation....

> I think the TC needs to decide if they want to move forward or  
> delay one
> more month to allow us to do one more QA.

The answer to that is now obvious given the current situation.

I would also suggest that the QA be documented. That is, how did we
test for quality? What process and procedures did the group use?

Cheers...  Renato Iannella
National ICT Australia (NICTA)

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.

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