> 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.
Better in what way? They looked pretty similar to me, in intellij. On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 12:35 PM John Wass <jwa...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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! >> > >> >>
