Hi Pete, Sorry for pulling in late on this but your newest message
revealed this previous message. Ok, so we need to make a fix here to
get this straightenned out. Two questions (and pardon any of my
technical naivete):
- what are the ramifications for user communities (e.g. OAI) if we just
change our import base to this updated schema? I assume that it is
effectively none?
- who controls the dublin core web site so we might place this updated
version on it? Andy Powell, do you have an answer to this?
Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Johnston [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 3:38 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: problem with simple dc schema
>
>
> With apologies for the slow response....
>
> On Tue, 8 Oct 2002 16:04:05 -0400, Naomi Dushay <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > The issue is that Xerces 2.2.0 complains if you assign a namespace
> > prefix to the XML namespace URI:
> > http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace (though it is still
> > fine to import it.) This behavior is currently peculiar to
> > Xerces 2.2.0 ... but I'm not sure if Xerces 2.2.0 is right
> or wrong in
> > it's complaint.
>
> Some truffling around on xmlschema-dev returns:
>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlschema-dev/2002Jul/0181.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlschema-dev/2002Jul/0184.html
which reference
http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-names-19990114-errata
Under NE05 that says:
===========
The prefix xml is by definition bound to the namespace name
http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace. It may, but need not, be declared,
and must not be bound to any other namespace name. No other prefix may
be bound to this namespace name. ===========
That last sentence is the decisive one here, and it means that a
namespace declaration of
xmlns:x="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace"
is invalid, rather than redundant.
So yes, it looks as if Xerces 2.2 _is_ implementing that errata
correctly here. Recent versions of XSV also now report an error. It's a
(relatively) recent errata, which I guess explains the change in
validator behaviour and also why some other parsers haven't caught up.
FWIW, this has hit other communities too e.g.
http://www.imsglobal.org/developers/ims/imsforum/attachments/IMS%
5FMDBinding%5FChange%5FRationale%2Epdf
I think Naomi's suggested fix works and I've put an amended version
temporarily at
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/simple/simpledc20021009.xsd
Pete
|