Thanks for the feedback. It was in line with what I figured. There is a chance the ambiguity I am seeing between .dfdl.xsd and .xsd is self inflicted, but just wanted to put this out there.
On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 10:14 AM Beckerle, Mike < mbecke...@owlcyberdefense.com> wrote: > If you have edited tdml in an XML aware editor, you know that the support > for embedded dfdl schemas is better than it is in xsd editors for a dfdl > schema file. > > For that reason I thought maybe we should use the ".dfdl" extension for a > daffodil feature which replaces the xs:schema element of a dfdl schema with > a daf:dfdl element. It would otherwise take all the same attributes as > xs:schema, but by being our own outermost element the editor support would > treat it more like tdml than xsd. > > This breaks a daf:dfdl schema from being exactly an XML schema, but the > transform to get back is trivial. This might be worth it for the superior > IDE support we would get with almost no effort. > > > > > > > > > Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> > ________________________________ > From: Steve Lawrence <slawre...@apache.org> > Sent: Friday, December 18, 2020 9:31:58 AM > To: dev@daffodil.apache.org <dev@daffodil.apache.org> > Subject: Re: Daffodil schema file extension > > I think the main reason for the .xsd extension is so IDEs/editors > recognize the file as a normal XML Schema file, and so you get all the > benefits that come with that (e.g. autocompletion, syntax highlighting, > error checking), since most tools aren't going to know about a DFDL > schema, at least by default. > > The .dfdl.xsd extension is so that it makes it possible to configure > IDEs/editors to know specifically about DFDL schemas (e.g. DFDL specific > annotations/properties). But that requires a little IDE configuration, > and not all IDEs/editors support this kind of thing. So even if you > can't do that, you still at least get the XML Schema capabilities with > the .xsd extension. > > As for changing it, that should be fine from a Daffodil perspective. It > doesn't care at all about the extension--it is purely a convention to > make authoring schemas easier. > > Though, one thing to keep in mind is that although these are "DFDL > Schemas", they are still valid XML Schemas and can be used anywhere an > XML Schema can be used. For example, it's not uncommon to parse a file > with a DFDL schema and then use that exact same schema to validate the > resulting infoset. It's possible some XML validation tools/systems > expect XML validation schemas to end in .xsd, though I'm not aware of > any though. > > I general, I think the benefit to .dfdl.xsd is that things that only > care about XML schemas can view these files as normal XML Schemas due to > the .xsd extension. But things that also care about DFDL schemas can > have a special case to treat files with .dfdl.xsd extensions differently. > > Also, I think I have seen .xml and plain .xsd (without .dfdl) extensions > used for DFDL schemas, likely for the IDE support. But .dfdl.xsd gets > you the possibility of that extra customization. > > > On 12/18/20 8:21 AM, John Wass wrote: > > Doing a little work with software that cares about file extensions, > > resulting in a couple questions about the history and future of the dfdl > > file extension. > > > > 1, Why was the extension of .dfdl.xsd used? > > 2. What issues would arise by dropping the xsd part? > > 3. Are there any other extensions being used, or were there others in the > > past? > > > > Interested in Daffodil and DFDL answers, if they diverge somehow. > > > > Thanks! > > > >
