W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > September 2009

[Bug 6513] [XQuery] inconsistent terminology in definition of derives-from()

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 06:30:29 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1MrnHB-00025d-TL@wiggum.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6513





--- Comment #16 from Michael Dyck <jmdyck@ibiblio.org>  2009-09-27 06:30:29 ---
>   An schema type

"An" -> "A"

>   that is not in-scope might be encountered, for example, if
>   a source document has been validated using schema components
>   in a namespace that was not imported into the static context.

The spec has very little support for the phrasing "import a namespace".
Moreover, its only mention of "schema components" is in appendix F. So I'm not
clear on the benefit of changing
    a schema that was not imported
to
    schema components in a namespace that was not imported


> 3. The existing definition of schema import already says that the element
> declarations, attribute declarations, and type definitions are imported into
> the ISSD, and does not give any exceptions. Our resolution of
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5738 asked me to add a note
> clarifying that we intend this to be a transitive schema import:
> 
> ...
> Add:
> 
>   NOTE: Unlike XML Schema's import feature, an XQuery schema import
>   imports all the schema components that are in or referenced by the
>   identified schema document, irrespective of their namespace.

I believe this is independent of the original issue, and it seems to me that it
belongs in Bug 5738. But since it's here...

(a) I think the use of the phrase "the schema document" is incorrect. A schema
import identifies a schema, not a schema document. A schema might come from
multiple schema documents, or might not come from any schema documents at all.

(b) What about components that are referenced by components that are referenced
by the identified schema? To me, the given wording doesn't indicate transitive
closure.

-----------

The proposed changes do not actually address the original issue, namely that
the  definition of 'derives-from' fails to use defined terms where I believe it
should. In fact, as given, change #1 makes things even worse, because the uses
of "known" and "unknown" in 'derives-from' would now be undefined. I'm hoping
that was just an oversight, and the proposal should have included the following
collateral changes:

In the definition of 'derives-from', change:
   "a known type"
   and
   "a schema type found in the in-scope schema definitions"
   to
   "an in-scope type"

and change:
   "an unknown type"
   and
   "a schema type not found in the in-scope schema definitions"
   to
   "a not-in-scope type"


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 27 September 2009 06:30:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:45:40 UTC