Draft
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Ezra Brooks <ezra@brooks.cx>
Unfortunately, as convenient as it is, the `xml-model` processing instruction is *not* standard and we should not rely on it as it does not work with the lion's share of XSD implementations. Signed-off-by: Ezra Brooks <ezra@brooks.cx>
This was referenced Oct 27, 2025
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Please merge #227 first so the diff on this PR is less wonky :) I'll make this not a draft and rebase it once that's merged.
Reverts a change from #200 that, while well-intentioned, appears to me to make it harder to validate the XSD with traditional tools. The change made the recommended way of using the XSD the
<? xml-model ?>processing instruction, which is non-standard and not broadly supported.By way of evidence, using the popular
xmlschemalibrary in Python:I also checked the source code of
lxmland found no reference toxml-model.I understand that the upside of this change, if you're using a schema validator that accepts the
xml-modelprocessing instruction, is that you can validate therobotelement itself - whereas with the original implementation therobotelement is the element referencing the schema location, so it isn't going to be validated. However, I think remaining compatible with the greater ecosystem of tools is more important than the convenience factor here.