- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:49:46 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m23absvfb9.fsf@nwalsh.com>
Per the discussion on 16 Apr, I've amended the description of p:validate-with-xml-schema to include the following text: <para>Validation is performed against the set of schemas represented by the documents on the <port>schema</port> port. These schemas must be used in preference to any schema locations provided by schema location hints encountered during schema validation, that is, schema locations supplied for <code>xs:import</code> or <code>xsi:schema-location</code>, or determined by schema-processor-defined namespace-based strategies, for the namespaces covered by the documents available on the schemas port. </para> I think that satisfies the related issue that came up during discussion. As for the meat of the issue that Vojtech raised, as to whether processors may|must gaurantee the right result given this example: <p:input port="schema"> <p:inline> <xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"> <xs:include schemaLocation="http://foo.com/document.xsd"/> </xs:schema> </p:inline> <!-- the following inline schema overrides the 'default' schema located at: http://foo.com/document.xsd --> <p:inline xml:base="http://foo.com/document.xsd"> <xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"> ... </xs:schema> </p:inline> </p:input> Where the salient point is whether or not the second inline document is used when the first inline document is expanded by the schema processor, I'm inclined to point to section 2.2.1 and punt. Basically, this becomes implementation dependent. I'm not happy with that answer but I don't think we have a precedent for providing a normative answer. I fear that if we want to provide a normative answer to this question, we will have to solve all of the issues papered over by 2.2.1 and I don't think we can practically do that for V1. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Vision is the art of seeing things http://nwalsh.com/ | invisible.-- Swift
Received on Tuesday, 28 April 2009 17:50:31 UTC