- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:58:53 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3534 ------- Comment #9 from davidc@nag.co.uk 2006-07-28 09:58 ------- > I am not in the XQTS team, so I don't know what you decided when you wrote Oh sorry ,I should have said explictly, neither am I, I'm not in the working Groups at all. However the recent changes to these tests were at least partly triggered by some bug reports that I sent in (asking that the schema dependence be removed or made explict in the catalog) so I felt I could offer some background as to how they came to be as they are. The test should not be in minimal conformance as conforming implementations (including my own, saxonB and several other existing ones) conform to that level but can not input typed data so should not be made to fail the test. I asked that they be moved to a separate area of the test suite for "PSVI input" actually they have been mved to "schema import" which isn't so accurate but probably workable. Of your three solutions, I think (1) should be chosen and the xml file once again reference the schema. I do not believe (2) is a solution at all. A query engine that does schema import may (and probably should) still input an untyped tree if the schema import is added to the query as the schema import statement should have no effect on input trees. On (3) if it were to be fixed in the catalog I think the way it should be done is for the <input-file> to have an attribute saying to schema validate using atomic.xsd, however as I say I think (1) is best. Currently (in cvs) atomic.xml declares xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" but never uses the xsi namespace. I think that is just a bug and it should have an xsi:schemaLocation pointing to atomic.xsd David
Received on Friday, 28 July 2006 09:58:58 UTC