- From: David E. Cleary <davec@progress.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:22:06 -0500
- To: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
- Cc: <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
Dear Noah, The W3C XML Schema Working Group has spent the last several weeks working through the comments received from the public on the Candidate Recommendation (CR) of the XML Schema specification. We thank you for the comments you made on our specification during our CR comment period, and want to make sure you know that all comments received during the CR comment period have been recorded in our CR issues list (http://www.w3.org/2000/12/xmlschema-crcomments.html). You raised the point registered as issue CR-51: localidref: Does IDREF validation contradict our validation story? In general, validation of an element involves validation of the subtree rooted at that element, but can be performed without reference to its context. Thus, the spec manages almost completely to avoid any appeal to the notion of 'document' in defining validation. The rules for type IDREF, however, do make such an appeal. Do those rules mean that we should revise our description of how validation is perfomed? Similar arguments apply to keys and keyrefs. Do they mean that validation of subtrees below the scope of the key constraint is (a) impossible, (b) partial (omitting key and keyref constraint checking), (c) legal but requires the processor to climb the tree until it hits the scoping element, (d) other? The Schema WG has discussed the issue you have raised and has decided there is no issuein regards to IDREFs and our validation story. Therefore, we have chosen to take no action on this issue. It would be helpful to us to know whether you are satisfied with the decision taken by the WG on this issue, or wish your dissent from the WG's decision to be recorded for consideration by the Director of the W3C. Regards David Cleary XML Schema Working Group
Received on Tuesday, 23 January 2001 12:25:34 UTC