W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > July to September 2007

[Bug 4838] Chameleon <xs:include> behavior

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 22:59:57 +0000
CC:
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1IBeyT-0006xH-SA@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4838





------- Comment #3 from cmsmcq@w3.org  2007-07-19 22:59 -------
With regard to the XYZ corner case mentioned in the description
and in comment #1:  the wording proposal the editors are sending
to the WG today does not address it.  If we wish to address the
case, by taking up the suggestion in comment #1, the specific wording
change needed would be: 

In Schema Representation Constraint: Import Constraints and Semantics,
first move the definition of MD (module) and DD (driver) up to before
clause 1.  Then replace clause 1, which currently reads:

  1 The appropriate case among the following must be true:
    1.1 If the namespace [attribute] is present, then its ·actual value· 
        does not match the ·actual value· of the enclosing <schema>'s 
        targetNamespace [attribute].
    1.2 If the namespace [attribute] is not present, then the enclosing 
        <schema> has a targetNamespace [attribute]

with something like

  1 If both DD and MD have targetNamespace [attribute]s with the same
    actual value, or if neither has a targetNamespace [attribute],
    then the <import> is treated in the same way as an <include>
    element in the same position and with the same attributes and
    content.  

And optionally add a note saying processors can issue warnings
if they like:

    Note:  conforming processors MAY choose to issue a warning if
    the targetNamespace [attribute]s of MD and DD fail to differ.
    When clause 2.3 of Schema Representation Constraint: Inclusion 
    Constraints and Semantics is being applied, however, such 
    warnings are unlikely to be very useful.

I would put this into the proposal itself but for the fact that if I
do that we will not have the proposal out today.

[This suggestion is made without impairment of my conviction that until
we are willing to look with fresh eyes on our schema composition story,
fixing individual issues of this kind is an unwise use of our time.]
Received on Thursday, 19 July 2007 23:00:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:50:06 UTC