- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:54:49 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4104 Summary: Transitive chameleon includes Product: XML Schema Version: 1.0/1.1 both Platform: PC OS/Version: Windows 2000 Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: Structures: XSD Part 1 AssignedTo: cmsmcq@w3.org ReportedBy: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com QAContact: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org I was just reviewing the discussion of chameleon includes at [1]. It says: 2 One of the following must be true: 2.1 SII has a targetNamespace [attribute], and its �actual value� is identical to the �actual value� of the targetNamespace [attribute] of SII� (which must have such an [attribute]). 2.2 Neither SII nor SII� have a targetNamespace [attribute]. 2.3 SII has no targetNamespace [attribute] (but SII� does). 3 The appropriate case among the following must be true: 3.1 If clause 2.1 or clause 2.2 above is satisfied, then the schema corresponding to SII� must include not only definitions or declarations corresponding to the appropriate members of its own [children], but also components identical to all the �schema components� of I. 3.2 If clause 2.3 above is satisfied, then the schema corresponding to the <include>d item's parent <schema> must include not only definitions or declarations corresponding to the appropriate members of its own [children], but also components identical to all the �schema components� of I, except that anywhere the �absent� target namespace name would have appeared, the �actual value� of the targetNamespace [attribute] of SII� is used. In particular, it replaces �absent� in the following places: 3.2.1 The {target namespace} of named schema components, both at the top level and (in the case of nested type definitions and nested attribute and element declarations whose code was qualified) nested within definitions; 3.2.2 The {namespace constraint} of a wildcard, whether negated or not; Clause 2.3 seems to have effect only in the case that the including schema document has an explicit targetNamespace attribute. The result seems to be that if the included chameleon schema document itself issues an include, that grandchild schema document will not be subject to chameleon processing, even if it lacks a targetNamespace attribute. Is this intentional? If not, then probably it's a bug that should be addressed. Noah [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PER-xmlschema-1-20040318/#compound-schema
Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2006 18:55:03 UTC