I just read (again) section 4.2.3 of the W3C XML Schema specification (part I). Although the issue is not directly addressed (concatenation of imports), I have the *impression* that it Xerces is entitled to require that any references to schema components in other namespaces be accompanied by an appropriate <xs:import> element (in the original referencing schema).
Indeed, the <xs:import> instruction seems to do no more that import the schema *components*, and in fact "... components to be imported need not be in the form of a schema document; the processor is free to access or construct components using means of its own choosing." [end of third paragraph, section 4.2.3] I therefore see no obligation for a schema processor to take into account <xs:import> elements in the stylesheet that's being imported. On the other hand, I also do not find any obligation for a processor to require (as Xerces does) that references to schema components from a foreign namespace be accompanied by an explicit <xs:import> in the original stylesheet. In other words, the XMLSpy behaviour also seems acceptable. From the point of view of the XML Schema specification, XMLSpy is simply using a different means than the available <xs:import> instruction to discover the definition of referenced schema components from a different namespace. (Namely it is using the xs:import elements inside other referenced schema's). Conclusion: both are behaving in an acceptable manner? My conclusion is a cautious one though, as the relevant text in the specification does not address cascading import elements directly... James -----Original Message----- From: Jeehong Min [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 31 July 2004 03:56 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: scope of import All, Just wanted to verify correct behavior in Xerces. Suppose I have 3 schemas, with namespaces A, B, and C. Schema A imports only schema B. Schema B imports schema C. Is it legal for schema A to use a type from schema C? Xerces says no, saying that types from schema C are not referenceable from schema A. I agree with Xerces. However, I have a customer who is using XMLSpy which does not complain about this. So, what is the correct interpretation? Thanks, Jeehong --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
