Re: [ire] rdeDomain-1.0.xsd in objects-mapping-03 doc

[John Keating <[e-mail]>]

An error in my post:

"This gives a validation error for the first <rde:Dom:domain> in the file:"

Our xml does NOT contain the tag:  <rde:Dom:domain>; it's <rdeDom:domain>
as it should be.



On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 1:56 PM, John Keating <[e-mail]> wrote:

> The domain xsd is different from the other types (registrar, contact,
> host, etc).
>
> All of the xsd files for the other types start their definition like this
> contact example:
>
>    <annotation>
>      <documentation>
>        Registry Data Escrow contact provisioning schema
>      </documentation>
>    </annotation>
>
>    <element name="abstractContact" type="rdeContact:abstractContentType"
>      substitutionGroup="rde:content" abstract="true"/>
>    <element name="contact"
>      substitutionGroup="rdeContact:abstractContact"/>
>    <element name="delete" type="rdeContact:deleteType"
>      substitutionGroup="rde:delete"/>
>
>
> However, the domain xsd starts its definition like this, with no
> substitutionGroup for the abstractDomain:
>
>    <annotation>
>      <documentation>
>        Registry Data Escrow Domain provisioning schema
>      </documentation>
>    </annotation>
>
>    <element name="abstractDomain" type="rdeDomain:abstractContentType"/>
>    <element name="domain" substitutionGroup="rdeDomain:abstractDomain"/>
>    <element name="delete" type="rdeDomain:deleteType"
>      substitutionGroup="rde:delete"/>
>
> This gives a validation error for the first <rde:Dom:domain> in the file:
>
> cvc-complex-type.2.4.a: Invalid content was found starting with element
> 'rdeDom:domain'. One of '{"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0":content}' is
> expected.
>
> If I change the domain xsd so that it looks like all of the other types:
>
> <element name="abstractDomain" type="rdeDomain:abstractContentType"/>
>
> becoming:
>
> <element name="abstractDomain" type="rdeDomain:abstractContentType"
>   substitutionGroup="rde:content" abstract="true"/>
>
> Then the xml output (which matches the examples) passes validation.
>
> Has anyone else run into this?
>
>
>