Hi Stefan, Not being a user of WST, I'm not sure what "Xerces based" validation with WST implies. Are you actually using Xerces directly or is there something else calling into it? Perhaps WST is causing this failure. Xerces' behaviour certainly isn't sensitive to file extensions.
Thanks. Michael Glavassevich XML Parser Development IBM Toronto Lab E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Stefan Eder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 04/18/2007 01:59:52 PM: > Hi Michael, > It is really weird and it is not a well-formedness error, or at > least I cannot see it. > I can validate the identical content with an extension of *.xml > without errors, but if I rename the file to *.ixml (that triggers > the validation I am building with Xerces within my environment), I > get this strange behavior. The working validation is also Xerces > based (Eclipse/WST), but I want to get the advantages of grammar > caching, xinclude etc. > And in fact, the working validation method does not allow the > workaround for the buggy validation method like: > <xddl:column-ref name="column"> > </xddl:column-ref> > Then I get the error: cvc-complex-type.2.1: Element 'xddl:column- > ref' must have no character or element information item [children], > because the type's content type is empty. This is an error that > makes sense to me. > It must be: > <xddl:column-ref name="column"></xddl:column-ref> > or, what I want, simply: > <xddl:column-ref name="column"/> > to pass the working validation without errors, but this doesn't work > for the buggy one. > I am already thinking about to call the nearest priest and ask him > to hunt the devil out of my box ;-) > This is the complete file: > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> > <xddl:logical-group > xmlns:xddl="http://schemas.ebuconnect.com/xddl"; > xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"; > xsi:schemaLocation="http://schemas.ebuconnect.com/xddl xddl.xsd" > name="root"> > <xddl:logical-group name="sub1"> > <xddl:table name="table1"> > <xddl:column name="column1" type="varchar" size="20"/> > <xddl:column name="column2" type="varchar" size="20"/> > <xddl:primary-key name="pk_table1"> > <xddl:column-ref name="column1"/> > <xddl:column-ref name="column2"/> > </xddl:primary-key> > </xddl:table> > </xddl:logical-group> > <xddl:logical-group name="sub2"> > <xddl:table name="table1"> > <xddl:column name="column1" type="varchar" size="20"/> > <xddl:column name="column2" type="varchar" size="20"/> > <xddl:primary-key name="pk_table1"> > <xddl:column-ref name="column1"/> > </xddl:primary-key> > <xddl:foreign-key name="fk_table1"> > <xddl:constraint-ref contstraint="pk_table1" > table="/root/sub1/table1"/> > <xddl:column-ref name="column1"/> > <xddl:column-ref name="column2"/> > </xddl:foreign-key> > </xddl:table> > </xddl:logical-group> > </xddl:logical-group> > > I have some key constraints within my Schema that enforce unique > names of several elements. Not globally, but within the scope of > their parent elements and some keyref constraints to ensure the > existence of matching counterparts for some references on those elements. > Also I am using substitution group constructs like this: > <xs:element name="constraint" abstract="true"/> > <xs:element name="non-primary-key" substitutionGroup="xddl: > constraint" abstract="true"/> > <xs:element name="index" substitutionGroup="xddl:non-primary-key"> > <!-- ... --> > </xs:element> > <xs:element name="unique" substitutionGroup="xddl:non-primary-key"> > <!-- ... --> > </xs:element> > <xs:element name="foreign-key" substitutionGroup="xddl:non-primary-key"> > <!-- ... --> > </xs:element> > <xs:element name="table"> > <xs:complexType> > <xs:sequence> > <xs:element ref="xddl:column" minOccurs="1" > maxOccurs="unbounded"/> > <xs:element ref="xddl:primary-key" minOccurs="0" > maxOccurs="1"/> > <xs:element ref="xddl:non-primary-key" minOccurs="0" > maxOccurs="unbounded"/> > </xs:sequence> > <xs:attribute name="name" type="xs:string" use="required"/> > <!-- ... --> > <xs:attributeGroup ref="xml:specialAttrs"/> > </xs:complexType> > <!-- ... --> > </xs:element> > > But all in all the Schema is neither big nor complex, just work in > progress (unfortunately not so much progress at the moment). > Thanks for your response, any further ideas/hints/suggestions will > be very appreciated. > Regards, Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
