• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: UPA and schema handling
• From: Ian Graham <ian.graham@u...>
• Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 12:27:53 -0400
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803

I've been fiddling around with very simple schemas that violate the UPA 
constraint -- and have found that some schema tools flag UPA errors 
(e.g. oXygen), while others (e.g. XML spy) do not. This inconsistency 
is, at best, confusing -- but at worst would seem to lead to 
interoperability problems, since a designer could build a schema with 
one toolset and find it is not acceptable to another.

So am I missing something here?  Is UPA really an inviolable constraint 
[my interpretation], or is it just a guideline, in the manner of 
Appendix E 'Deterministic Content Models (Non-Normative)' in the XML 1.0 
specification?  And if it's just a guideline, would this not lead to 
interoperability problems as I've just outlined?

And, if someone already went down this rat hole, can anyone refer me to 
the corresponding xml-dev (or other) thread ;-)

Best --

Ian
-- 
Ian Graham
H: 416.769.2422 / W: 416.513.5656 / E:<ian . graham AT utoronto . ca>

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: UPA and schema handling
    • From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Which Will Be Released First, the W3C's XQuery Specor Longhorn?
• Next by Date: RE: Which Will Be Released First, the W3C's XQuery Specor Longhorn?
• Previous by thread: simplexml wrapper for expat?
• Next by thread: Re: UPA and schema handling
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread