Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="megasycophant" data-source="post: 4313357" data-attributes="member: 69639">No, not at all.&nbsp; The application which merely displays/prints character sheets uses a minimal schema, the one that doesn't contain all the validation-type data, just validating format.&nbsp; Easier to illustrate with an example.&nbsp; Let's say that I have house-ruled the following feat:Odd...&nbsp; &quot;Munchkin&quot; wasn't in my spellchecker's dictionary. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />I have my houserules dataset, compiled it with my other datasets, yadda, yadda, yadda in order to create and validate my character data.&nbsp;&nbsp; The xml output for this feat looks something like this:[CODE]&lt;feat xsi:type=&quot;WeaponGroupFeat&quot;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; name=&quot;Munchkin Attack&quot; group=&quot;spears&quot; /&gt;[/CODE]My compiled schema which I used to validate my document defines the name attribute for a WeaponGroupFeat something like this:[CODE]&lt;xsd:attribute name=&quot;name&quot;&gt;&nbsp; &nbsp; &lt;xsd:simpleType&gt;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &lt;xsd:restriction base=&quot;xsd:string&quot;&gt;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &lt;xsd:enumeration value=&quot;Weapon Focus&quot; /&gt;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &lt;xsd:enumeration value=&quot;Munchkin Attack&quot; /&gt;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &lt;!-- other feat names here --&gt;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &lt;/xsd:restriction&gt;&nbsp; &nbsp; &lt;/xsd:simpleType&gt;&lt;/xsd:attribute&gt;[/CODE] I send it to someone else (or pull it into a display/formatting/printing tool).&nbsp; This tool uses the minimal schema (which is really all it needs).&nbsp; It knows about the WeaponGroupFeat type, but just knows enough to display it.&nbsp; The definition for name in its schema looks like this:[CODE]&lt;xsd:attribute name=&quot;name&quot; type=&quot;xsd:string&quot; /&gt;[/CODE]So, a 'good' document will validate against both schemas. Documents created with the 'enhanced' schema (containing all the data enumerations) etc will always conform to the minimal schema (but not necessarily the other way around).&nbsp; Also, documents could be created and manipulated using the minimal schema if a user doesn't feel the need to do the validation, programatically manipulate the data, etc.The obvious first step is to create that minimal schema. (Which is essentially what your'e doing, eh?)&nbsp; It shouldn't change too much either once you've worked out the enhanced schema.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="megasycophant, post: 4313357, member: 69639"] No, not at all. The application which merely displays/prints character sheets uses a minimal schema, the one that doesn't contain all the validation-type data, just validating format. Easier to illustrate with an example. Let's say that I have house-ruled the following feat: Odd... "Munchkin" wasn't in my spellchecker's dictionary. :p I have my houserules dataset, compiled it with my other datasets, yadda, yadda, yadda in order to create and validate my character data. The xml output for this feat looks something like this: [CODE]<feat xsi:type="WeaponGroupFeat" name="Munchkin Attack" group="spears" />[/CODE]My compiled schema which I used to validate my document defines the name attribute for a WeaponGroupFeat something like this: [CODE]<xsd:attribute name="name"> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:string"> <xsd:enumeration value="Weapon Focus" /> <xsd:enumeration value="Munchkin Attack" />  </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> </xsd:attribute>[/CODE] I send it to someone else (or pull it into a display/formatting/printing tool). This tool uses the minimal schema (which is really all it needs). It knows about the WeaponGroupFeat type, but just knows enough to display it. The definition for name in its schema looks like this: [CODE]<xsd:attribute name="name" type="xsd:string" />[/CODE]So, a 'good' document will validate against both schemas. Documents created with the 'enhanced' schema (containing all the data enumerations) etc will always conform to the minimal schema (but not necessarily the other way around). Also, documents could be created and manipulated using the minimal schema if a user doesn't feel the need to do the validation, programatically manipulate the data, etc. The obvious first step is to create that minimal schema. (Which is essentially what your'e doing, eh?) It shouldn't change too much either once you've worked out the enhanced schema. [/QUOTE]

Verification