W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > December 2001

RE: Semantics of elementFormDefault / Form

From: Priscilla Walmsley <priscilla@walmsley.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 09:38:20 -0500
To: "'Jeni Tennison'" <jeni@jenitennison.com>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <005c01c1889a$ea3bc010$522a6420@vitria.ad.vitriacorp.com>
Yes, you're right - there is a contradiction.  An erratum is in the works.

Thanks,
Priscilla
------------------------------------------------------
Priscilla Walmsley              priscilla@walmsley.com
Vitria Technology                http://www.vitria.com
Author, Definitive XML Schema      (Prentice Hall PTR)
------------------------------------------------------

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org
> [mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jeni Tennison
> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 6:41 AM
> To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
> Cc: Priscilla Walmsley; 'Slein, Judith A'; 'Kurian, Binil'; 'Sembower,
> Neil R'; 'Graham Mann'
> Subject: Re: Semantics of elementFormDefault / Form
>
>
> Priscilla Walmsley wrote:
> > With namespace="##other", you should _never_ get an ambiguous
> > content model error, because ##other means that the elements
> > matching the wildcard _must_ be in a namespace. Since unqualified
> > local elements must _not_ be in a namespace, there is no ambiguity.
>
> Hmm... I think that there's a contradiction in the Rec.
>
> In the Rec it says that when namespace="##other", the {namespace
> constraint} of the wildcard schema component is:
>
>  "a pair of not and the actual value of the targetNamespace attribute
>   of the schema ancestor element information item if present,
>   otherwise absent."
>
> In the description of the {namespace constraint} of the wildcard
> schema component, it says that the {namespace constraint} provides for
> validation of element items that:
>
>  "(not and a namespace name) have any namespace other than the
>   specified namespace name, or are not namespace qualified;"
>                             ==============================
>
> Which I think implies that wildcards with namespace=##other do match
> unqualified elements.
>
> But later on in "Validation Rule: Wildcard allows Namespace Name" it
> says:
>
>   For a value which is either a namespace name or ·absent· to be
>   ·valid· with respect to a wildcard constraint (the value of a
>   {namespace constraint}) one of the following must be true:
>
>   2 All of the following must be true:
>   2.1 The constraint is a pair of not and a namespace name or
>       ·absent· ([Definition:] call this the namespace test).
>   2.2 The value must not be identical to the ·namespace test·.
>   2.3 The value must not be ·absent·.
>
> Which I think implies that wildcards with namespace=##other do not
> match unqualified elements (since their namespace name is absent).
>
> If the description of {namespace constraint} summarises the intention,
> the validation rule should be changed, so that it does not include
> clause 2.3. If the validation rule defines the intention, then the
> description of the {namespace constraint} should be changed, to remove
> the ", or are not namespace qualified".
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jeni
>
> ---
> Jeni Tennison
> http://www.jenitennison.com/
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 19 December 2001 09:39:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:25 GMT