I think SDO allows you to define a type in XSD with the name compliant to the XML Schema spec. If you have special chars like dot (.) in the name, the type's name would be preserved. However, if you like to take the XSD and generate static APIs representing the type, then you need to use sdo:name annotation to override the name because dot is reserved for specifying Java package. Fuhwei
Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Pete Robbins wrote: > "special characters"? > > On 07/08/06, Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote: >> >> Pete Robbins wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Ok, I guess we're not going to use XPath on SCDL right away :) so I'm >> >> not going to worry about the annotations now then. I'm still curious >> >> though, it is valid in XSD to have a dot in an element name, and I >> would >> >> expect XPath to be able to deal with that... Isn't there a way to >> escape >> >> these dots in an XPath expression? >> > >> > >> > >> > You could try but there may be a limitation in SDO (or at least the >> C++ >> > implementation) which does not allow dots in the names. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> >> I scanned the SDO spec and could not find anything saying that dots are >> not allowed in names. >> >> Page 104 of the SDO 2.01 spec says: The XSD names are preserved in the >> Type and Property. Use the sdo:name override to modify names as an >> option to remove duplicate names, blank names, or names with >> special characters. >> >> I would expect the SDO property name to be the same as the XSD element >> name, with the dot. >> >> Could one of our Java or C++ SDO experts help shed some light on this? >> Are dots allowed in SDO names? Did I miss anything in the spec? >> Do we need to make a fix to the C++ SDO implementation? Any pointer to >> where to start to fix this? >> >> Thanks, >> >> -- >> Jean-Sebastien >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > Pete, The SDO spec is not specific about what "special characters" are. This could very well include dots, but I am interpreting the "...use sdo:name override as option to..." as a nice convenience (as they say an "option"), not something that "you absolutely have to do to make things work". If this is actually the case, and "special characters" are not allowed in SDO names, then it should be clearly stated in the spec. In a spec which main goal is to handle types, I was expecting an unambiguous type definition for SDO names... I have scanned the whole doc three times now, but maybe I missed it :) -- Jean-Sebastien --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
