W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > April to June 2008

[Bug 5078] define required components

From: <bugzilla@farnsworth.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 16:00:59 +0000
CC:
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1JyUGp-0006vO-NJ@farnsworth.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5078


cmsmcq@w3.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|needsDrafting               |needsAgreement, needsReview




------- Comment #3 from cmsmcq@w3.org  2008-05-20 16:00 -------
A working paper on the questions raised by this issue is at

  http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2008/05/xsd-bug5078.html
  (member-only link)

Section 4.1 does not mention wildcards, so there is no obvious hook
for inserting a statement that processors need not engage in heroic efforts
to find element declarations for elements otherwise unknown which match
lax or not-in-schema wildcards.  Instead, the working papper proposes a 
generic note reminding the reader that if required components are missing,
the result is that some items in the PSVI will have [validation attempted]
= 'partial' or 'none'.  We can hope that this will act as a sufficient
reminder that the spec does have rules for dealing with missing components.

On the broader question of making those rules a little clearer, it's not 
clear to me, on the basis of the working paper, whether we want to invest
in changing this part of the spec now or not.  To the extent that we 
content ourselves with clarifying what the spec already says, of course, 
editorial changes can be made at any time; if we want to change the rules,
however -- e.g. by providing that missing type references are replaced by
references to xs:error -- then we need to make that change before we go to
Last Call.
Received on Tuesday, 20 May 2008 16:01:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:13:15 GMT