Michael, I've changed my mind, and now I think we should fix the XSD, having strict checks and lose flexibility, instead of having the jdo implementation do more checking. It's just too long to implement/maintain/test, prone to errors and costs in performance.
I propose the extension element to be placed as last child of the parent element, and applications upgrading from JDO 2 to JDO 2.1 could use a PMF vendor property to disable XSD validation if their schema is not valid By the way, the DTD in the JDO 2 spec document refers to JDO 1 DTD instead of JDO 2 DTD. Regards, Quoting Michael Bouschen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi, > > as Craig recently pointed out the JDO XSD files are not correct and > cause failures when using the feature schema-full-checking during XML > parsing (see Craig's email with subject "XSD woes" and the JIRA issue > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-472). > > Here is a proposal of what should be changed from my point of view: > - Loosen the restrictions on the placement of extension elements, > meaning that the jdo implementation needs to do more checking. I sent > around an updated version of the JDO XSD file (subject "Re: XSD woes") > and did not receive any objections. > - Update the version entry in the XML Schema file to 2.1 and rename the > xsd files accordingly: jdo_2_1.xsd, orm_2_1.xsd and jdoquery_2_1.xsd. > - For consistency rename the DTD files to include the version number 2.1 > (e.g. jdo_2_1.dtd) and adapt the standard PUBLIC and SYSTEM DOCTYPE. > > Regards Michael > > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Engineering GmbH Tel.: +49/(0)30/235 520-33 > Buelowstr. 66 Fax.: +49/(0)30/217 520-12 > 10783 Berlin mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Geschaeftsfuehrung: Dr. Gerhard Mueller-Proefrock > Anna-Kristin Proefrock > Sitz Berlin, Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 564 52 > >
