I have a large .xsd file structured like this:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<xsd:schema xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
xmlns="foo:bar:baz" xmlns:quux="foo:bar:baz"
quux:attr1="A" quux:attr2="5">
<xsd:attribute name="attr1" type="xsd:string"/>
<xsd:attribute name="attr2" type="xsd:int"/>
<xsd:annotation>
<xsd:documentation>
<xhtml:h1 quux:attr1="A" quux:attr2="5">
Documentation here
</xhtml:h1>
</xsd:documentation>
</xsd:annotation>
<xsd:complexType name=... />
</xsd:schema>
I get the error: "The foo:bar:baz:attr1" attribute is not declared.
Why is it not finding the attribute? It's right there. How can I make these attributes available to the documentation's header?
Future edit: the above schema got the green light from actual XML Validators. Guess there was just something Visual Studio was reading incorrectly.
The XSD you show can be imported or included into another XSD that includes an element declaration, but alone it cannot be used to validate an XML file because it does not declare even a single element.
Related
Unmarshalling using jaxb keeps displaying same error. The xsd content is listed below, followed by the error. Grateful for any help.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<xsd:schema xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
<xsd:element name="HouseName" type="xsd:string"/>
</xsd:schema>
Error: lineNumber: 2; columnNumber: 58; cvc-elt.1: Cannot find the declaration of element 'xsd:schema'.]
I tried without using the xsd on a simple xml file and it worked fine, I tried generating the xsd from a simple xml. But when I tried and include the SchemaFactory.newInstance to XMLConstants.W3C_XML_SCHEMA_NS_URI and the schema filename and run the unmarshaller it displays the error above. I checked previous comments about similar situations but they do not apply.
I'm having the following "imp.xsd":
<xsd:schema targetNamespace="http://imported"
xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
<xsd:element name="Imported" type="xsd:string"/>
</xsd:schema>
imported from "incl.xsd":
<xsd:schema targetNamespace="http://main"
xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
<xsd:import namespace="http://imported" schemaLocation="file:///C:/.../imp.xsd"/>
<xsd:element name="Included" type="xsd:string"/>
</xsd:schema>
which in turn is included from "main.xsd":
<xsd:schema targetNamespace="http://main"
xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
<xsd:include schemaLocation="file:///C:/.../incl.xsd"/>
<xsd:complexType name="dummy">
<xsd:sequence xmlns:impt="http://imported" xmlns:incl="http://main">
<xsd:element ref="incl:Included"/>
<xsd:element ref="impt:Imported"/>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:schema>
Question: is "main.xsd" a valid xml schema document?
When validated with the xmllint parser (or from python lxml library, which in turn uses xmllint), I get the following error:
Element '{http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema}element', attribute 'ref':
References from this schema to components in the namespace
'http://imported' are not allowed, since not indicated by an import
statement. WXS schema main.xsd failed to compile
However, another (IBM) parser accepts this XSD without any complaints.
As far as I understand xsd:include, it should behave as if the whole included XSD is inlined into the main document. So, in my opinion, the "main.xsd" should be valid. Is it?
Edit: I was experimenting with xmllint a bit, and when I add the line
<xsd:import namespace="http://imported" schemaLocation="file:///C:/.../imp.xsd"/>
into "main.xsd", xmllint accepts that schema. However, when I add the same line while omitting file:///, I get the following warning:
Element '{http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema}import': Skipping import of
schema located at 'C:/.../imported.xsd' for the namespace
'http://imported', since this namespace was already imported with the
schema located at 'file:///V:/.../imported.xsd'.
Hence I deduce that the original "main.xsd" is valid and that this is a bug in xmllint.
See this thread on the xmlschema-dev#w3.org mailing list. In his answer, Henry S. Thompson quotes following part of the spec:
For a ·QName· to resolve to a schema component [...] the
·namespace name· of the ·QName· is the same as one of the following:
[...]
The ·actual value· of the namespace [attribute] of some <import>
element information item contained in the <schema> element
information item of that schema document [emphasis added].
So indirect imports are not supposed to work.
I have a problem generating equals and hashcode methods for my imported xsd files which are output to a separate location to my wsdl files. I currently have a .wsdl and .xsd file in the same folder. The .wsdl file imports these xsd files which have a different namespace to the wsdl file. When these xsd files are generated they do not contain equals or hashcode methods. Below is a sample of my pom/xml config and files:
<wsdlOption>
<wsdl>
src/main/xml/wsdl/Rule.wsdl
</wsdl>
<wsdlLocation>classpath:wsdl/Rule.wsdl</wsdlLocation>
<bindingFiles>
<bindingFile>src/main/xml/wsdl/bindings.xjb</bindingFile>
</bindingFiles>
<extraargs>
<extraarg>-impl</extraarg>
<extraarg>-verbose</extraarg>
<extraarg>-xjc-XsimpleEquals</extraarg>
<extraarg>-xjc-XsimpleHashCode</extraarg>
</extraargs>
</wsdlOption>
Sample wsdl (imported Rule.xsd is not generating methods):
<wsdl:definitions xmlns:soap="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/"
xmlns:tns="http://www.ws.com/Rule/" xmlns:wsdl="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/"
xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" name="Rule"
targetNamespace="http://www.ws.com/Rule/">
<wsdl:types>
<xsd:schema targetNamespace="http://http://www.ws.com/Rule/">
</xsd:schema>
<xsd:schema xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
targetNamespace="http://www.ws.com/Rule/"
xmlns:pref="http://www.xsd.com/Rule" xmlns:pref1="http://www.xsd.com/Common">
<xsd:import schemaLocation="Rule.xsd"
namespace="http://www.xsd.com/Rule">
</xsd:import>
<xsd:import schemaLocation="Common.xsd" namespace="http://www.xsd.com/Common"></xsd:import>
<xsd:element name="ListGrid">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="request"
type="pref:test" maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="1">
</xsd:element>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>
I assume this is a problem with the location of the generated xsd as I can get it to work by moving this to the same parent folder as the wsdl namespace. I would like to get this to work without moving these files locations as I have a large codebase that would require a large refactor if I do this.
Any suggestions would be welcome.
I found a solution to this problem by adding the following to the pom.xml configuration:
<extraarg>-p</extraarg>
<extraarg>http://www.xsd.com/Rule=com.xsd.rule</extraarg>
Even though this does not change the namespace/package location it seems to now generate the imported files equals and hashcode methods.
I have two xsd files. 1st file is common.xsd and the other is node.xsd. Both node.xsd and common.xsd share the same targetNamespace. common.xsd references an element defined in node.xsd using ref attribute. However, node.xsd is NOT included in common.xsd either using include or import. But the XML that I validate using these xsd files, passes the validation (Tried all corner usecases).
I wonder how this is possible. Is this because, they share the same namespace? Also is referencing an element without including/importing legal in XSD?
EDIT:
Simplified Code Snippets(The actual xsd's are much more complex and they are written in this format for bigger reason):
common.xsd
<xsd:schema xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
xmlns:my="my-namespace"
xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace"
targetNamespace="my-namespace"
elementFormDefault="qualified">
<xsd:element name="common" type="my:commonType" />
<xsd:complexType name="commonType">
<xsd:choice minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<xsd:element ref="my:node"/>
<!-- few other elements -->
</xsd:choice>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:schema>
node.xsd
<xsd:schema xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
xmlns:my="my-namespace"
xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace"
targetNamespace="my-namespace"
elementFormDefault="qualified">
<xsd:include schemaLocation=common.xsd"/>
<xsd:element name="node" type="my:nodeType"
substitutionGroup="my:common" />
<xsd:complexType name="nodeType">
<xsd:complexContent>
<xsd:extension base="my:commonType">
<!-- some 5-7 attributes -->
<xsd:anyAttribute/>
</xsd:extension>
</xsd:complexContent>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:schema>
These xsd's let me nest element within itself any number of times.
E.g
<my:node>
<my:node />
<my:node>
<my:node />
</my:node>
</my:node>
You can observe that my:node is referenced in common.xsd without including node.xsd. (Curious as to how this even works.)
I can make this look even more wicked... You can remove the xsd:include in node.xsd and still validate your XML! Take a look at this Xerces API for how you could do it.
The idea is that from a spec perspective, an XML Schema processor can resolve schema locations in many ways. It also means that some XSD files when looked at individually may not be valid due to dangling references, yet when put together through APIs like the one above, or custom resolvers (e.g. supporting "catalog" files) the result is an equivalent schema that is valid.
The way an XSD processor typically works, is that it puts together all the schema components that can be loaded through the references it can resolve, then it looks at the result as a whole, irrespective of where these components come from. In your case, node.xsd brings in common.xsd; the result is a valid schema, since all that is needed for components in common.xsd can be found among components already brought in by node.xsd.
In your case it is as if the inner content of the xsd:schema tag in common.xsd replaces the xsd:include in node.xsd. If you do that by hand, the result is correct, right?
As I side note, I would point out that the snippets you've shown don't illustrate the use of the common substitution group. As a reminder, you have to reference the head of the substitution group if you want you to get substitution going.
We are creating xml files that we want to be compliant with the following xsd: http://www.topografix.com/gpx/1/1/gpx.xsd This xsd supports '...extending by adding your own elements here ...', see the extensionsType, which I have copied below for convenience.
1) I don't understand whether annotation and documentation are literal element names that would appear in compliant xml. I believe they are not but need confirmation. I'm assuming then that a compliant document would simply have any number of our own custom elements anywhere inside of any [extensions] element, correct?
2) Why are there two pairs of annotation/documentation elements below, with one in a sequence?
<xsd:complexType name="extensionsType">
<xsd:annotation>
<xsd:documentation>
You can add extend GPX by adding your own elements from another schema here.
</xsd:documentation>
</xsd:annotation>
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<xsd:annotation>
<xsd:documentation>
You can add extend GPX by adding your own elements from another schema here.
</xsd:documentation>
</xsd:annotation>
</xsd:any>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
1) From the XML Schema specification: "Annotations provide for human- and machine-targeted annotations of schema components." Schema authors use xsd:documentation as, say Java or .NET, developers use comments.
Annotations are XML Schema artifacts; they are not to show up in an XML document. And yes, your extensions elements should go under <extensions/>; you may use any namespace, other than http://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/1
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<!-- Sample XML generated by QTAssistant (http://www.paschidev.com) -->
<gpx xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" version="1.1" creator="creator1" xmlns="http://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/1">
<extensions>
<my:element xmlns:my="urn:tempuri-org:some">Hello!</my:element>
</extensions>
</gpx>
2) Hard to say why there are two with the same comment; the difference though is that one documents the complex type, while the other the xsd:any element. I would personally have used different comments, first to explain what the complex type is for, the second just as shown.