Hi Neil !
> [..]
> All right, I'm convinced. Change made in CVS.
Thanx.
*hmm* had a look at the fix.
That was done a little bit different than what I suggested, but that
doesn�t matter much.
parser.setEntityResolver( (fEntityResolver != null)?
(fEntityResolver):(new Resolver()) );
What I suggested was that it could be similar to what is done in
org/apache/xerces/validators/common/XMLValidator.java
parser.setEntityResolver(new Resolver(fEntityHandler));
The corresponding Resolver there also seemed to be suitable to me.
Bye the way: after you�ve removed the DTD�s from the source the inner
Resolver class doesn�t really do anything useful anymore. As what it did
was providing those DTD�s.
> ! for 5.) No i don�t think they should be removed, they shoud be updated
to
> the
> ! ones included in my testcase ;-) As this would enable the Schema
> validator to
> ! be able to handle schema documents that use a DOCTYPE declaration to
> declare
> ! that they are schema documents, see above.
> ??? Basically, if Xerces sees a schemaLocation in an instance document
and
> it resolves to an XML document, it will take that to be a schema and
squeal
> if it isn't. We don't need (and I don't believe should have to have) a
> DOCTYPE definition to tell us anything...
Agreed to some extend. The parser would in most cases not need the
DOCTYPE definition for anything. But an application could have other use
of the XMLSchema than using it for validating a document. Eg. generating
stubs for WebServices or similar. Parsing the Schema for some other need
one can take advantage of the public identifier, eg. in an
EntityResolver. And just for readability it is nice to have a DOCTYPE
declaration.
So we don�t need it in the parser, but we should be able to handle it if
it has one. With the fix you�ve supplied it is possible for a developer
using the parser to customize the parser to be able to do that, so that�s
probably enough. Then XMLSchema schemas are examples that do use a
DOCTYPE declaration.
A more sophisticated example would be an Schema declaring entites in the
DOCTYPE declaration and referening to external entites doing something
similar to XHTML modularisation with a schema, but chances that someone
would want to do such wierd thing are pretty low of course.
> [..]
> The schema for schemas is one of the parts of the Schema specifications
> that we consulted when we developed the schema implementation. It isn't
> sufficient to validate schema documents on its own, but using it to help
> validate documents must be slower than building a custom engine for
> validating schema docs. That's why we've gone down the road of building
> the capability to validate schemas right into the parser, not relying on
> any DTD's or schemas to help; it just speeds things up.
OK, understood that approach.
But once something like a "XML Schema CM API" will have been published,
thinks will likely get more complicated. Will be interesting to see how
this will be done in Xerces-2.
> So that's why the files in question are now gone from CVS: we weren't
using them and they were confusing people.
Aehm, you were using them with the older version of the Schema
specification. They were used to speed up parsing every time a DOCTYPE
declartion was present in a schema referring to
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xmlschema-1-20000407/structures.dtd";
That�s what the Resolver set at the DOMParser did.
Without them the default Resolver of the parser goes online and load them
from the w3c site. With the fix one can prevent this by suppling an on
EntityResolver in this case. But IMHO it but have been nice to do this
also if the user of the parser was not prepared to do so. An upgrade to
recent version would than have used them whenever a DOCTYPE declaration
for the current schema specification was present.
> As to schemas we can't validate: you're right, we certainly have
problems
> with xml.xsd. I think that's because we don't understand that "xml" is
> implccitly bound to a particular namespace; I still have to look up
whether
> this is indeed expected of us. (Anyone know offhand?) If it is then
we'd
> better change that behaviour...
Well I doubt that any schema that wants to use either
<xs:attribute ref="xml:lang"/>
or
<xs:attribute ref="xml:space"/>
would be possible otherwise.
Schemas are also XML documents that are defined by a Schema, the
XMLSchema.xsd
As a developer you would like to be able to check wether you made some
mistake by using a Schema validator. Yes I know there is a workaround.
> If you have other schemas that don't validate, we'd love to have access
to
> them, especially if you can whittle them down to show precisely where
we're
> going off the rails. That's how we'll become better at validating
schemas.
> :-)
If time permits, I�d love to :-(
> [..]
> Yup. :-)
> Hope that helps,
> Neil
Kind regards,
Bernd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
