- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 17:47:15 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13674 --- Comment #15 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> 2011-10-07 17:47:15 UTC --- Rereading this, I think that Oliver's original issue is in fact covered by the rule in 2.2.5 ("if two participating ISSDs each contain a definition of an element name E, the substitution group headed by E must be equivalent in both ISSDs.") But there are other potential inconsistencies that are not covered, for example the fact that strict wildcards may be matched in one schema and not the other. It's very unfortunate that adding an element declaration to a schema can make an unrelated element invalid. It's possible that an implementation may be able to tolerate such inconsistencies, provided it avoids making too many inferences from knowledge of types. For example, it might refrain from making any inferences about things that match wildcards, or it might assume statically that every element has an open-ended substitution group. It still feels very painful that revalidating an element that is already annotated as valid, against the same type, could fail, and we should certainly allow implementations to prevent this happening. The section on inconsistencies is essentially pointing out a list of conditions under which all bets are off, and unless we're prepared to specify exactly what happens when these inconsistencies arise, we should play safe by including things in the list. -- 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 Friday, 7 October 2011 17:47:17 UTC