Re: Included <schema>

Hi Mukul,

Thanks Mukul for pointing out that this part is removed in XML Schema 
1.1. Yes, it is clear that m.xsd is invalid if we validate it 
standalone. The problem I have is if m.xsd should be considered invalid 
according to XML Schema 1.0 also when we start from test.xsd.

Best Regards,
George
--
George Cristian Bina
<oXygen/> XML Editor, Schema Editor and XSLT Editor/Debugger
http://www.oxygenxml.com

On 2/12/13 12:58 PM, Mukul Gandhi wrote:
> Hi George,
>      The XSD 1.1 spec at the same place mentions only this,
> <quote>
> 1.2 It resolves to a <schema> element information item in a well-formed
> information set.
> </quote>
>
> The 1.1 spec doesn't say "which in turn corresponds to a valid schema."
> I think, with an XSD 1.1 processor test.xsd would correspond to a valid
> schema. With both XSD 1.1 and 1.0, m.xsd in isolation would be invalid
> (since the element reference, <xs:element ref="a"/> within it cannot be
> resolved).
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 3:18 PM, George Cristian Bina
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>     Hello,
>
>     I always thought that an included schema document may refer to
>     components that are defined in the including <schema> even if they
>     are not directly reachable if we start from the included schema.
>
>     More clearly the following sample should be valid:
>
>     test.xsd
>     <xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/__2001/XMLSchema
>     <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema>">
>        <xs:include schemaLocation="m.xsd"/>
>        <xs:element name="root">
>          <xs:complexType>
>            <xs:sequence maxOccurs="unbounded">
>              <xs:element ref="content"/>
>            </xs:sequence>
>          </xs:complexType>
>        </xs:element>
>        <xs:element name="a" type="xs:string"/>
>     </xs:schema>
>
>     m.xsd
>     <xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/__2001/XMLSchema
>     <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema>" elementFormDefault="qualified"__>
>        <xs:element name="content">
>          <xs:complexType>
>            <xs:sequence minOccurs="0">
>              <xs:element ref="a"/>
>            </xs:sequence>
>          </xs:complexType>
>        </xs:element>
>     </xs:schema>
>
>     Now, the spec says in
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/__xmlschema-1/#src-include
>     <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#src-include>:
>     ***
>     Schema Representation Constraint: Inclusion Constraints and Semantics
>     In addition to the conditions imposed on <include> element
>     information items by the schema for schemas, all of the following
>     must be true:
>     1 If the ·actual value· of the schemaLocation [attribute]
>     successfully resolves one of the following must be true:
>     1.1 [...]
>     1.2 It resolves to a <schema> element information item in a
>     well-formed information set, which in turn corresponds to a valid
>     schema.
>     ***
>
>     Does this "which in turn corresponds to a valid schema" mean that
>     the above schema starting from test.xsd should be considered invalid
>     because m.xsd is not valid itself?
>
>     Neither Saxon EE nor Xerces report problems when validating test.xsd
>     so my guess is that there is some other place in the spec that allow
>     this case and maybe the "corresponds to a valid schema" here does
>     not mean that the module itself is a valid schema but that all the
>     modules that define components in the same namespace should form a
>     valid schema.
>     Anyway, I will appreciate some insight into this.
>
>     Best Regards,
>     George
>     --
>     George Cristian Bina
>     <oXygen/> XML Editor, Schema Editor and XSLT Editor/Debugger
>     http://www.oxygenxml.com <http://www.oxygenxml.com/>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Mukul Gandhi