Re: [Bug 11354] Mentions of "override" outside of the override section

On Mar 10, 2011, at 4:35 AM, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> 
> 
> C. M. Sperberg-McQueen writes:
> 
>> On Mar 7, 2011, at 5:04 PM, bugzilla@jessica.w3.org wrote:
>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11354
>> ...
>> If you say "This schema document is not schema-valid against the
>> schema for schema documents", that's a true statement, though you
>> are not required to check schema validity for the document before
>> pre-processing it. 
>> 
>> (Or are you?  The transformation specified is schema-aware, so
>> to run it as written you do need to schema-validate it.)
> 
> I agree with MK that attractive as it may be to some Java programmers,
> writing schema documents which _must_ be overriden before they can be
> used is not something we want to encourage.

That seems a plausible position.

We may have different views on whether a rule saying
that schema-document properties are checked after
the transform and not before counts as encouragement
or not.

> Add to that MSM's observation above, and I think it's clear that we
> need to require Dold as well as Dold' to "correspond to a conforming
> schema." in *Schema Representation Constraint: Override Constraints
> and Semantics*

That's one of the possible ways to resolve the apparent
contradiction between having a schema-aware transformation
and the rule we enunciate about when document properties
are checked, but it's surely not the only one.

In particular, I do not see why the input to any transformation
should be expected to conform to the prose constraints on 
schema documents.  Is there any motivation for such a rule
other than the wish to make sure the users have brushed their
teeth and washed behind their ears before we allow them to
use an XSD validator?

-- 
****************************************************************
* C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, Black Mesa Technologies LLC
* http://www.blackmesatech.com 
* http://cmsmcq.com/mib                 
* http://balisage.net
****************************************************************

Received on Thursday, 10 March 2011 15:21:31 UTC