[Bug 4123] MS additional tests: schemaLocation

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4123

C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com

--- Comment #5 from C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> 2012-01-21 00:18:00 UTC ---
Some time ago (too long) I took an action to examine this bug and report back
on the current state of the test cases and their interaction with Mary
Holstege's recommendations regarding schemaLocation indications.  I have now
done so.

In all of the instance tests listed, the testGroup has no record of the schema
documents involved, so (assuming the WG adopts or has already adopted MH's
recommendations) all of these test groups will need to add a schema test
listing the schema documents involved in the instance test.

In some of the tests (perhaps all the ones where it's appropriate; I haven't
reviewed the materials in enough detail to know),  the current test suite has
two 'expect' elements, one with version '1.0' and one with version '1.1', with
different results (valid and invalid) reflecting the change in 1.1 that removes
the prohibition on multiple schemaLocatiion hints for the same namespace on
different elements.   In all of these cases, the document will be valid in XSD
1.1 only if the processor is following schema location hints in the instance;
if the processor ignores such hints, the expected result of the test is not
'valid' but 'notKnown'.

So for test addB156.i, for example, the current 

    <expected validity="invalid" version="1.0"/>
    <expected validity="valid" version="1.1"/>

should be replaced by 

    <expected validity="invalid" version="1.0"/>
    <expected validity="valid" version="1.1 instance-schema-loc-follow"/>
    <expected validity="notKnown" version="1.0 instance-schema-loc-ignore"/>

(In passing, I note that this case illustrates why the expected/@version
attribute has an implicit AND among its tokens, rather than an implicit OR.)

Similar changes are needed in several other cases.

Finally, the original description of the bug focuses in test addB156.i, where
the current metadata says that for 1.0 the expected result is 'valid'.  In
considering bug 4078, however, the WG agreed with the argument that the 1.0
spec is currently contradictory with respect to cases like this, and opened bug
9158 as a way of resolving the issue.  So for test addB156.i (and possibly
others mentioned here), the expected result for 1.0 should not be 'valid' but
'indeterminate'.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://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 Saturday, 21 January 2012 00:18:06 UTC