W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-schema-testsuite@w3.org > June 2010

A more formal sketch of Proposal Q

From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 21:38:55 -0600
Message-Id: <31804945-6DD8-4F0F-8E34-3EB5067A62E8@blackmesatech.com>
To: public-xml-schema-testsuite@w3.org
Cc: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>, Mary Holstege <holstege@mathling.com>
The 'proposal Q' sketched in my earlier reply to Michael Kay's
proposal P has now been turned into slightly more formal
terms in the relevant parts of

http://www.w3.org/XML/2008/xsdl-exx/ancillary/xsts-schema.sketch.xml

In particular see the description of the version-info type

http://www.w3.org/XML/2008/xsdl-exx/ancillary/xsts-schema.sketch.xml#version-info

Some more examples would probably be useful, but I have
attempted to make the documentation attached to each element
and type declaration as explicit as I could about how things
are expected to work.

This version of the schema document defines four sets of
mutually exclusive version tokens:

   1.0 and 1.1 for XSD versions
   1.0-1e and 1.0-2e for XSD 1.0 editions
   CTR-all-compile, CTR-all-runtime, CTR-all-idep for
     behaviors regarding schema errors in complex type
     restrictions involving all-groups
   XML-1.0 and XML-1.1 for the two sets of XML-based
     datatypes

The values in each set are mutually exclusive in the sense
that it is logically contradictory for more than one
value in a set to appear in a single expected/@version
value.  On testGroup, testSet, etc., the semantics are
different and it's perfectly legal for a test set to
have multiple values from the same set, e.g.

   version="1.0 1.1"

to indicate that the test set is applicable to any
processor which supports either 1.0 or 1.1.

The opposition between the disjunctive meaning of
the version attributes on testSet etc. (test set should
be executed if ANY of these are supported), and the
conjunctive meaning on expected/@version (result is
prescribed when ALL of these are active) may prove
unnecessarily confusing; it seems likely that it
may be useful in complex cases, but at the moment
I don't have any examples.  I can neither prove that
it's necessary, nor that it's unnecessary and can
safely be removed.

Since the XSLT test suite has a lot more optional features
and probably cases where they interact in more complex
ways, I'd be particularly glad of input from those who
have used it a lot.  Michael?  Mary?



-- 
****************************************************************
* C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, Black Mesa Technologies LLC
* http://www.blackmesatech.com
* http://cmsmcq.com/mib
* http://balisage.net
****************************************************************
Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 03:39:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 June 2010 03:39:28 GMT