[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Since the new design is moving along well--it can compile and might even be > able to validate some kinds of simple schemas even in its current Really? I've been busy on other projects lately and didn't know you were making such great progress! :) Once we clean up the packaging, should we do another beta release with preliminary Schema support? > I'll remove it; if only one person does I'll put it on a branch (unless > they veto me :-)) and if more people care then speak up and let us know > what's up! :-) I might be good to put it on a branch regardless. > - move the code in v2.xpath to util.xpath Seems fine. I'm sure that more XPath stuff will be required in the future so having it in the set of common utilities seems like a good idea. > - port/move the v1.util.regex package to util.regex I don't know about this one. I would like to keep the code modular which means that we should try to keep the packages separate. Since the regular expression code is only needed for Schema validation, I think that it should be under the impl.schema package. > - move the v2.XSD*Traverser, v2.SubstitutionGroupHandler, XSDocumentInfo > and XSDHandler classes to impl.schema.traversers > - move v2.CMBuilder, XSSimpleCM, XSCMValidator to impl.schema.models > - move v2.identity.* and v2.datatypes.* to schema.identity and > schema.datatypes respectively I think keeping everything in the impl.schema package is a good idea. Nice and clean. > - modify xni.parsers.XMLEntityResolver and impl.validation.GrammarPool > and/or add some new XNI classes to reflect the Grammar caching discussion I don't like this one. I would like to keep XNI as only the streaming infoset and parser construction pieces. Validation is not inherently something needed in either of these two pieces, so it shouldn't be included. And I have serious reservations about trying to define grammar information for inclusion in XNI. The reason is that I don't think any single grammar model can adequately capture all sets of XML grammars. > - rename impl.validation to impl.dtd to reflect the fact that only > DTD-related stuff lives there Fine. (I don't like long package names like "validation" anyway. :) > - leave the rest of the contents of v2 in the schema package > (SchemaGrammar, SchemaSymbols, the XS*Decl classes perhaps, the error > infrastructure etc.) Agreed. > - find a sensible home for v2.SAXParser, v2.SchemaParser, > v2.SchemaParserConfiguration Well, if things are really going as well as you say, I think that we won't need this because we can put the Schema validator into the standard parser configuration used by both the DOM and SAX parsers. > no need for an impl/common directory; maybe things like the base Grammar > (abstract/interface) could live somewhere under the xni package? (I hope > this isn't too sacreligious Andy! :-)) At any rate we'll surely need to Ack! I don't think it should be in XNI. > modify some of the XNI interfaces if we develop some kind of a LocationHint > interface to help resolve the location of grammars... I don't think we need to modify XNI interface to do this because it's merely an implementation issue. What would be the reasoning for making this a part of XNI? -- Andy Clark * IBM, TRL - Japan * [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
