Alex Milowski wrote: > In many cases people extend schemas without having the original schema > that you might > be editing with "know" about these extensions. For example, if I extend > a schema by > adding a type/element to a substitution group, the original schema does > not know about > this extension. > > You can create documents that via the namespaces use these extensions. > They will be > valid and it would seem that this product would support such an instance. > > On the other hand, if you are editing a document that has yet to > reference this > namespace/schema combination for the extension, you don't have the new > type/element > available to you to insert. It would be really handy to be able to load > a schema for > ad-hoc extensions. > > Further, in many situations, these extensions aren't ad-hoc. You want > them to be > provided by the configuration. So you really want to tell the editor > about these > addition schemas that the main document's schema does not reference so > these > extensions are available to your author. > > While I have examples of this, the simplest way to duplicate this is to > create a > substitution group in the main schema and then, in another schema, add > another > element to this. If your main document is created only from the main > schema, this > extension will not show up (obviously) in the current version of this > editor. > > While there is a work-around of making a master schema that imports > everything, this > really isn't what you want from an XML Schema perspective.
I understand the problem, but XXE design makes very difficult to implement the use of the extension schemas like you have described it.
