[Bug 5157] 3.4.2 example unclear

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5157

           Summary: 3.4.2 example unclear
           Product: XML Schema
           Version: 1.1 only
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows XP
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Structures: XSD Part 1
        AssignedTo: cmsmcq@w3.org
        ReportedBy: johnarwe@us.ibm.com
         QAContact: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org


The final example in 3.4.2 "Without the specification of the notQName
attribute, the restriction might or might not be valid, depending on whether
the schema has a top-level declaration for speaker."

The example text states that the restriction would be valid if a top level decl
for speaker exists (I assume top level decl == GED).  If there was a GED for
speaker, then the computer CTD's speaker decl would be in a different (local)
symbol space than the GED since the CTD has name= not ref=.  Is the definition
of notQname telling me that it violates the partitioning of symbol spaces by
treating both the local and global as "the same"? Is it telling me that the
local def of speaker would still be allowed because the wildcard notQname would
match ONLY the GED?

It also states that in the absence of a top level decl for speaker the
restriction would not be valid because of differences in the default bindings. 
Specifically it says that the base type computer maps speaker elements in the
input to a ·default binding· consisting of the element declaration for speaker,
and goes on to assert that this is something other than ·xs:anyType·.  Applying
3.3.2 tableau case 2 (complex type ancestor) to the example declaration, I
think its {type definition} would be ·xs:anyType· according to rule 4 (1 fails
due to no children, 2 fails no type, 3 fails no subs group).  So I am not
seeing in this case why the default bindings are unequal.

Received on Monday, 8 October 2007 20:02:54 UTC