- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 18:04:02 +0000
- To: public-xml-schema-testsuite@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4078 Summary: addB156 - schemaLocation after first use of namespace Product: XML Schema Test Suite Version: 2006-11-06 Platform: PC OS/Version: Windows XP Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: Microsoft tests AssignedTo: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk ReportedBy: mike@saxonica.com QAContact: public-xml-schema-testsuite@w3.org In the Microsoft Additional test set, test group addB156 uses the instance document test93490_2.xml, which contains the structure: <foo:root xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="foo test93490_1.xsd" xmlns:foo="foo" > <foo:elem1 xsi:schemaLocation="foo test93490_2.xsd" xmlns:foo="foo"/> <foo:elem2 /> <foo:elem3 /> </foo:root> As it happens, validation of the instance does not require any schema components from test93490_2.xsd. The test results document this as invalid, presumably on the basis of the rule in 4.3.2 rule 4: "xsi:schemaLocation and xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation [attributes] can occur on any element. However, it is an error if such an attribute occurs after the first appearance of an element or attribute information item within an element information item initially ·validated· whose [namespace name] it addresses. " However, Schema Representation Constraint: Schema Document Location Strategy says: Given a namespace name (or none) and (optionally) a URI reference from xsi:schemaLocation or xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation, schema-aware processors may implement any combination of the following strategies, in any order: 1 Do nothing, for instance because a schema containing components for the given namespace name is already known to be available... A processor that follows this strategy will not report the error described in the earlier section. The specification appears to be internally inconsistent, and as a result this test is not interoperable. (One could finesse the inconstency by deducing that the spec says it's an error, and the spec also says that a processor isn't required to do anything about the error; but the conclusion is the same.)
Received on Wednesday, 13 December 2006 18:04:16 UTC