[Bug 5738] [XQuery] Constraints on schemas

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5738





--- Comment #7 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>  2008-07-30 15:34:40 ---
> In discussion, there were clearly a number of people who felt that the 
> term ISSD was intended to mean what I meant by "static schema", that 
> is, all the schema definitions available to the processor during static analysis.

# I think the spec says that, I gave a trace in comment #3.

No, I don't think it does say that. The definition of ISSD in 2.1.2 says it
includes the types/declarations "in imported schemas". Also, the use of the
term "in-scope" gives a strong suggestion that there are definitions and
declarations that are not "in-scope"; the language is similar to that used for
variables and functions, where the concept of "scope" indicates whether names
are available for use within a part of the query.

# I think http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery/#dt-schema-import is completely vague
about what schema components are imported, and whether import schema is
transitive or not. Do you see clear language that says it is not transitive?

Not as clear as I would like. But the phrase "...a schema import specifies the
target namespace of the schema to be imported" comes close: it suggests
strongly that the behaviour is analogous with xsd:import (and with import
module) in that it causes all names in a particular namespace to be
referenceable. Neither of those other facilities, also called import, are
transitive.

> then the contents of the ISSD become very variable from one 
> implementation to another,

# I think that's true for every single thing that is augmentable by an
implementation.

I would prefer the context to be less open-ended, but my interpretation of this
"augmentation" has always been that an implementation may provide API
configuration facilities that give the user an alternative to the Query Prolog
as a way of specifying such context information.

This is all straying a long way from the original bug report, however. If it's
true that the user doesn't have any control over what's in the ISSD and what
isn't, then it becomes even more true that the consistency rules as currently
stated in 2.2.5 make very little sense. 


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2008 15:35:15 UTC