Duane:
In message-header-2_0.xsd, we include the following import clauses:
<import namespace="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#"
schemaLocation="http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-msg/schema/xmldsi
g-core-schema.xsd" />
<import namespace="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"
schemaLocation="http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-msg/schema/xlink.
xsd" />
<import namespace="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"
schemaLocation="http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-msg/schema/envelo
pe.xsd" />
<import namespace="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace"
schemaLocation="http://www.w3.org/2001/03/xml.xsd" />
These import clauses are necessary because attributes and elements defined
in these foreign namespaces are actually referenced within the message
header schema (e.g., soap:mustUnderstand, xlink:href, ds:Signautre,
xml:lang, etc). I don't think the message header schema would be valid
without the import clauses.
The import construct is used in the schema definition, not in an instance
document. I am a little confused when you wrote:
> > 1. In an instance document, the attribute xsi:schemaLocation provides
hints
> > from the author to a processor regarding the location of schema
documents.
> > The author warrants that these schema documents are relevant to checking
the
> > validity of the document content, on a namespace by namespace basis. For
> > example, we can indicate the location of the Report schema to a
processor of
> > the Quarterly Report:
> <SNIP>/.....
>
> My interpretation of the above: This refers to importing definitions in
> order to perform a validating parse on an "instance document" - as the
> example states. If someone wishes to check the validity of a namespace
> qualified element to see if its' content matches (ie - datatyping
> constaints or content model), then they may have to resolve the
> schemalocation.
>
> What I am asking is "Is the requirement importing definitions OR is it
> to avoid naming conflicts?"
-Arvola