Altova Mailing List Archives
>xmlschema-dev Archive Home
>Thread Prev - RE: Including schemata with duplicate referents
'Re: "RE: Including schemata with duplicate referents"'
To: Alessandro Triglia <sandro@------.-->
Date: 11/5/2004 4:51:00 PM
Hi, Alessandro Triglia wrote: [...] > Note the use of the word "corresponding" here, which is the same word used= above ("which in turn corresponds to a valid schema"). > Again, a schema is said to "correspond to" a <schema>. This correspondenc= e is specified under "Schema Representation Constraint: Import Constraints a= nd Semantics" with regard to imported namespaces, and is specified under "Sc= hema Representation Constraint: Inclusion Constraints and Semantics" with re= gard to inclusion. The schema "corresponding" to a <schema> contains all th= e components of the imported schema. Now, if the <schema> corresponding to = that schema is **included** by another <schema>, the schema corresponding to= the latter must include those components as well. > Correct me if there is a flaw in my reasoning, but my interpretation of th= e Rec is that the import mechanism and the include mechanism are fully recur= sive with regard to what components become part of the schema. > (However, it is still mandatory to explicitly <import> or <include> in or= der to be allowed to reference a component in a schema document.) No objections. I hope my question was understood as how to actually implement this behaviour in a schema processor as I'm currently not sure what technique to use to avoid imports/includes of identical components which are already referenced in the various recursive schema construction steps. IOW, if including/importing I need to add copies of components of the included/imported schema to the including schema, but I must not include them if they are already included; if those rejected components are already referenced by components which _are_ included I don't know if remapping the references to their included twins or leaving them as 'not included but referenced', which seems memory wasting and feels like inconsistent. Regards, Kasimier From nobody@w... Fri Nov 05 14:54:49 2004 Received: from wiggum.