RE: [LC-2388] Initial entries in local-name partitions when using XML Schema

Hi Antoine,

Thanks for the comment. The WG has reviewed your comment, and noted that the
text in section 7.3.1 and appendix D.3 that you referred to need to be
improved in order to make it clear what the specification expects
out of implementations in a case such as that you described.

The expectation is that local names found in the schemas are merged with the
ones that are listed in the appendix D.3 to be collectively sorted,
partitioned by namespace URI to be assigned compact IDs.

Thanks again for your input. We are delighted to get to know of another
implementation effort underway.

-taki


-----Original Message-----
From: public-exi-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-exi-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Antoine Mensch
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 8:36 AM
To: public-exi-comments@w3.org
Subject: [LC-2388] Initial entries in local-name partitions when using XML Schema

Hi,

we are currently testing our EXI implementation using the XML Schema of
Schemas (http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema) to create a schema-informed
grammar. We run into the following problem:
- Section 7.3.1 says "When a schema is provided, the string table is
also pre-populated with the local name of each attribute, element and
type declared in the schema, partitioned by namespace URI and sorted
lexicographically."
- Section D.3 says "When XML Schemas are used to inform the grammars for
processing EXI body, there an additional partition that is appended to
the local-name partitions." and goes on listing the relevant local names.

However, the list of local-names provided in Section D.3 is not
consistent with the one produced when processing the XML Schema of
Schemas: the former only contains the local names of XML Schema
predefined types, while the latter also contains the local names of
elements used to write a schema. Should we overwrite the initial entries
defined in Section D.3 with the complete set of entries? Should we
append the missing entries (in lexicographical order) to the existing
entries? It might be useful to clarify this specific case in the spec,
in order to ensure interoperability.

Cheers

Antoine Mensch

Received on Wednesday, 14 July 2010 22:32:55 UTC