Re: Schema-for-schema errata?

"David Bau" <david.bau@bea.com> writes:

> In working on xmlbeans (http://xml.apache.org/xmlbeans), we found a few
> things that looked like errors in the current schema-for-schema posted on
> http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema.xsd
>
> Some of them have been discussed here in the past or even mentioned in the
> errata, but don't seem to be reflected in the posted xsd....  They are all
> minor things, but they all do get in the way of actually using the
> schema-for-schema to validate schemas.  Here is my list of things:
>
> (1) finalDefault needs to permit "list" and "union"

Known bug [1], fix coming soon.

> (2) the type of the <element> element in an <all> group needs to be given a
> name so that it is legal to use the type in both a base type and a
> restriction when using the allModel (otherwise it breaks one of the
> particle-valid (restriction) rules).

That will be fixed when the erratum changing Type Derivation OK
(Complex) to require named type defns is published officially, RSN.

> (3) The regular expressions that describe integrity constraint xpaths need
> to be modified to permit whitespaces in certain places, as discussed in one
> of the errata.

Known bug, on the WG's stack, not currently considered urgent.

> Below is my diff -b -u (XMLSchema.xsd.1 is the original)...
>
> How should I go about making a request for the schema-for-schema to be
> updated?

Since all of these are in the issues list, you don't need to do
anything.  In future, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org is the official
comments list.

Thanks for the suggested patches, the regexp in particular will be
useful.

ht

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/05/xmlschema-rec-comments.xml#pfiFinalDefault
-- 
  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                      Half-time member of W3C Team
     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
	    Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
		     URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]

Received on Thursday, 25 September 2003 06:22:27 UTC