On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 13:19:20 -0600, "Bill Winspur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Dan, > > In reference to your last note, > > > <>Assuming you have fed OxygenXML the schemas for our various > > document types, .<>.. > > and > > > <>I hate figuring out how to get XML editors to use my schemas ... > > I share that sentiment, as I get deeper into namespaces and schemas ( > and deeper fees like the right word at this point ). > > OK, enough metaphor. Should I assume from your comments, that the > Studio editors pro grammatically enforce schema constraints and > namespace conventions without the need to declare them in the > conforming documents?
The namespace has to be declared but the schema location does not. So for a page-flow <config xmlns="http://www.orbeon.com/oxf/controller"; > would be sufficient. Also if you create a new page-flow.xml and use the contentassist when creating the root element it , the contentassist that is, will take care of the namespace declaration. > > Probably due in large part to my unfamiliarity with the xml universe, > I am having difficulty validating the following file from orbeon.war > in a general-purpose xml editor. > > \WEB-INF\resources\examples\xforms\xforms-credit-card\view.xml > > You mentioned that 'for xpl, log4j.xml, and the page-flow.xml, your > preference is the Studio editors. However, xhtml and xform documents > are written in what I assumed were vanilla w3c XML markup. languages, > which you did not mention as 'better with Studio'. I hope they are > easier to handle in studio. Unfortunately at the moment they are not. Due to time constraints we decided concentrate on making things work for 'our' files. > > I have discovered that there are 'strict', 'transitional' and 'frames' > dialects of xhtml and xforms, depending on what other namespace > vocabularies are mixed in a given document. That does not sound like > robust vocabulary definition to this confessed java geek. I thought > the idea was to have one xhtml schema, one xform schema, etc. and then > to reference the schemas into a conforming document that mixed more > than one vocabulary, not to generate a blended schema for each > combination of vocabularies. > > Have I got this right about the dialects of xhtml, etc ? Wasn't sure myself, so looked to see what w3c had to say about xhtml. Maybe I am just reading it differently, but it seems it has less to do with including elements from other namespaces and more to do with supporting a.) those people who believe that layout info belongs in stylesheets and not the document itself, and b) those that just want HTML that can be validated. Oh, btw I was reading http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/, the section "Three "flavors" of XHTML 1.0:" . -- Dan S ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: YOU BE THE JUDGE. Be one of 170 Project Admins to receive an Apple iPod Mini FREE for your judgement on who ports your project to Linux PPC the best. Sponsored by IBM. Deadline: Sept. 24. Go here: http://sf.net/ppc_contest.php _______________________________________________ orbeon-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/orbeon-user
