- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:50:11 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5738 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@redhat.com> 2008-07-30 15:50:11 --- > 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. But C.1. clearly says this is augmentable. > # 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. OK, I'll buy that. > 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. I like that interpretation, and I actually tried to get us to say something specific like that, but I lost that battle. The spec does not narrow it down like that. And I don't think we should change that as a bug fix. > 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. A user can clearly do schema import. We don't seem to even specify a way for a user to do a transitive schema import. Perhaps providing that mechanism would be helpful? Jonathan -- 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 15:50:47 UTC