[Bug 5738] [XQuery] Constraints on schemas

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