Hi Noah,




It is not necessary to modify the
existing official XML Schema provided for SOAP by W3C. I think the
purpose of the example in the tutorial was to emphasize on the
necessity to avoid ambiguity when using <anyName>, not to show the one
and only way of doing things.


For example, it is possible to write a
RELAX NG schema that would validate interesting elements  (such as
purchaseOrder in your example) within whatever container
vocabulary(soap in your example), except the vocabulary of the
interesting elements; the interesting elements can be defined in this
schema or another one:


<?xml version="1.0"?>
<grammar xmlns="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0">
    <start>
        <ref name="rootElement"></ref>

    </start>
    
    <define name="rootElement">
        <element>
            <anyName>
                <except>

                    <nsName ns="http://interestingElements.com"></nsName>
                </except>                    
            </anyName>

            <ref name="children"></ref>
        </element>
    </define>
    
    <define name="children">    
        <zeroOrMore>
            <element>

                <anyName>
                    <except>

                        <nsName ns="http://interestingElements.com"></nsName>
                    </except>
                </anyName>                

                <ref name="children"></ref>
            </element>            
        </zeroOrMore>
        <optional>
            <ref name="interestingElements"></ref>

        </optional>        
    </define>
    
    <define name="interestingElements">
        <choice>

            <externalRef href=""interestingElement1.rng"/><br">
            <externalRef href=""interestingElement2.rng"/><br">        </choice>        
    </define>    
</grammar>

The  document can be validated against
the official SOAP  schema  for the container structure and against
the other schema for the content. If one of the validations fails,
the document is not valid.



Greetings,
Radu Cernuta









2007/2/6, noah_mendelsohn@u... <noah_mendelsohn@u...>:
I'm not a RELAX NG expert, but I am interested in this question, so maybe
your or other experts can provide a bit more detail.  What I see at
http://relaxng.org/tutorial-20011203.html#IDAFLZR
 gives some of what I
think people look for in W3C Schema lax validation, but not quite all of
it.  The difference I think I see is in the case where the attribute that
does have a declaration (xml:space in the example at the link) gets its

declaration from a separate schema document (in W3C Schema terms), perhaps
for a different targetNamespace.  The RELAX NG solution shown seems to
require that a list of the elements to be validated be provided with the

<anyName> wildcard in an <except> element.

Consider a SOAP envelope:

        <soap:envelope>
          <soap:body>
          <po:purchaseOrder>
              ...

          </po:purchaseOrder>
          </soap:body>
        </soap:envelope>

There are a variety of ways to acheive different effects using W3C XML
Schema, but the schema that's officially published by W3C for the envelope

has the body marked <any processContents="lax"/>. If someone comes along
and writes a completely separate schema document describing the
po:purchaseOrder, and passes both schema documents in on the API call to

the validator, the envelope and the purchaseOrder will be validated
together, and the overall envelope will be marked invalid if either the
envelope markup or the purchaseOrder is in error.  As I understand the

solution proposed above, it would involve modifying the W3C-provided
envelope schema to list <po:purchaseOrder> in an <except>.

Does RELAX NG have another approach, or is this considered a non-goal?

Certainly one always has the option of validating the container and the
payload separately.   Thanks!

Noah

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street

Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








"Radu Cernuta" <radu.cernuta@g...>

02/06/2007 06:49 AM

        To:     "Jeff Lowery" <jlowery@m...>
        cc:     xml-dev@l..., (bcc: Noah

Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        Re: [xml-dev] RELAX NG equivalent of <xsd:any
processContents="lax">?


For lax validation in RELAX NG you could take a look at the RELAX NG

Tutorial by James Clark and Murata Makoto. Section 11 (Name Classes)
handles this issue.

http://relaxng.org/tutorial-20011203.html#IDAFLZR


Greetings,

Radu Cernuta


2007/2/6, Jeff Lowery <jlowery@m...>:
This has got to be a FAQ, but no luck with googling:

Trying to find a shorthand method to validate content using lax

constraints in RELAX NG.  I want something like this:

#=================
namespace foo = "http://www.w3.org/foo"

qux =
    element baz {empty}     # some element


bar =
    element bar { anyLax* }  #allow baz, bar, anyOtherElement

anyOtherElement =
  element * - foo:*  {        # any elements not in this namespace
    attribute * { text }*,
     (text

     | anyOtherElement)*
  }

anyLax = (
        grammar {*}             #all patterns
        )*

#===========

Don't work, though.

Only examples I've seen enumerate all the grammars by name in the

schema. Doesn't appear there is wildcard of that type.

_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize

spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: 
xml-dev-unsubscribe@l...
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@l...
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/

List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php