RE: Resolution of bugs 2105 and 2748, Schema infoset fix-ups

Sorry not to respond promptly, it took me a while to dredge up the context,
evaluate your response, and look at how it was implemented in the draft.
Considering how long the bug has been around I'm sure you'll cut me some
slack ;-).

I think the resolutions are fine.  I would prefer on an aesthetic level that
defaulted QName values worked, but at this point I see reduced reliance on
defaulted attributes generally, so it's hard to see any practical benefit
from adding this edge case to the implementer's burden.

I've marked the bugs (except 4159) as closed.

Thanks!

Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen [mailto:cmsmcq@acm.org]
> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 1:50 PM
> To: Jonathan Marsh; www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org; w3c-xml-core-
> wg@w3.org
> Cc: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
> Subject: Resolution of bugs 2105 and 2748, Schema infoset fix-ups
> 
> Jonathan, and colleagues on the XML Core WG!
> 
> Long ago -- longer ago than I like to think, but 24 January 2002, to
> be exact -- Jonathan sent a comment to the XML Schema WG, with a CC to
> the XML Core WGs (as well as to XML Query and XSL, whom I have dropped
> from the CC list, for now), on the subject of schema infoset fix-ups.
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-wg/2002Jan/0090.html
> 
> In that note, Jonathan, you raise three issues.  These have, after
> various detours through the different forms in which the XML Schema
> Working Group has endeavored to maintain its issues lists, landed in
> Bugzilla as the issues pointed to below.
> 
> Issue 1: namespace fixup when a namespace-qualified attribute is
> defaulted:
> 
>    2102 (http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2102)
>         for 1.0; closed long ago (when? don't know) as LATER, i.e.
>         to be fixed in 1.1.
> 
>    2105 (http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2105)
>         for 1.1; closed today as FIXED
> 
>    2830 (http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2830)
>         for 1.1; unintentional duplicate of 2105;
>         closed today as FIXED
> 
> Issue 2: namespace fixup when a value of type QName is defaulted.
> 
>    2103 (http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2103)
>         for 1.0; closed long ago as LATER (defer to 1.1)
> 
>    2748 (http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2748)
>         for 1.1; closed today as WONTFIX
> 
> Issue 3: reflection of legacy types specified in schema in infoset
> 
>    4159 (http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4159)
>         for both versions (at least for now); not yet closed
> 
> This note is to let you know (both you, Jonathan, as the individual
> originator of these issues, and the XML Core WG, as an interested
> party as maintainer of both the basic Infoset spec and of XInclude)
> that the XML Schema Working Group has today approved a wording
> proposal which addresses both issue 2105 and issue 2748, and to ask if
> you are content with the disposition of those issues.
> 
> In summary, part of the proposal deals with the case of a defaulted
> attribute with a non-absent target namespace; for such attributes the
> proposal:
> 
>      * Adds a namespace attribute if needed, to declare a prefix for
>        the target namespace of a defaulted attribute.
> 
>      * Requires that [in-scope namespaces] be updated if needed, to
>        include a mapping for the target namespace of a defaulted
>        attribute.
> 
>      * Adjusts the prefix on the attribute as needed for consistency
>        with the (possibly modified) [in-scope namespaces].
> 
>      * Leaves ·implementation-dependent· whether
> 
>            o The [in-scope namespaces] on dependents is updated for
> consistency.
> 
>        or
> 
>            o Further namespace attributes are added on children for
>              consistency with their [in-scope namesapces].
> 
>        Note that the second of these is allowed only when the
>        implementation supports Namespaces 1.1.
> 
>      * Adds a note pointing out that when dependents are adjusted,
>        the option of adjusting their [namespace attributes] property
>        instead of their [in-scope namespaces] property is allowed only
>        when the implementation supports version 1.1 of Namespaces.
> 
> Another part of the proposal makes explicit that it is
> implementation-dependent whether namespace fix-up is performed for
> default values of type QName.  The following note, added after the
> summary of infoset contributions for elements, gives the flavor:
> 
>      Note: When clause 5.1 of Element Locally Valid (Element) (§3.3.4)
>      above applies and the {value} applied is of type QName or
>      NOTATION, it is implementation-dependent whether namespace fixup
>      occurs; if it does not, the prefix used in the lexical
>      representation (in [normalized value] or [schema normalized
>      value]) will not necessarily map to the namespace name of the
>      value (in [schema actual value]).
> 
> The WG did not achieve unanimity on all details here; some WG members
> initially wished to make namespace fixup for defaulted QNames be
> required, or failing that implementation-defined (meaning that
> implementations are required to document their behavior), but there
> was consensus only for weaker proposal that they be allowed to perform
> namespace fixup, with no further obligations.
> 
> Since the resolution of bug 2105 does require namespace fixup of
> conforming processors, as you suggested, it has been marked FIXED.
> Since the resolution of bug 2748 does NOT require fixup, I've marked
> it WONTFIX, although I think the clarification is worth something.
> Bugzilla doesn't seem to have a keyword for HALF-FIXED.
> 
> Issue 4159 remains open.
> 
> The full details of the new wording, intermingled with numerous other
> changes (sorry), may be found in
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.f2f0701-
> amendments.200702.html
> (W3C member-only link).
> 
> As the originator of these issues, Jonathan, we ask you to signal your
> agreement with (or at least: acquiescence in) these decisions by going
> into Bugzilla and marking the issues CLOSED. Or you can indicate your
> dissatisfaction with the decision by changing the status to REOPENED.
> If that doesn't work, please reply to this email (including the
> comments list, or the XML Schema IG, on the addressee or CC list). If
> we don't hear from you in a couple of weeks, we'll assume you
> acquiesce and the issues will be marked CLOSED.
> 
> As an interested party in the matter, the XML Core WG is similarly
> invited to indicate your degree of satisfaction (or resignation) on
> the topic.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> --C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
>    for the XML Schema WG

Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2007 17:16:52 UTC