- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:26:15 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4908 Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mike@saxonica.com --- Comment #3 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> 2008-09-02 11:26:15 --- Further to comment #2, another situation has arisen in the field: this time it appears that Xerces and XSV accept the schema, while Saxon rejects it. To simplify the situation, schema document r.xsd contains two xs:redefine elements: first redefining a.xsd, then b.xsd. Schema document a.xsd includes b.xsd. The second redefine includes a redefinition of a type T that is defined in b.xsd. Saxon rejects this on the following basis. The first redefine constructs a schema SII' correponding to a.xsd, which includes the original type T, and then replaces some of these components with redefined components. The second redefine constructs a schema SII' corresponding to b.xsd, replacing the original type T with a different type T. The schema corresponding to r.xsd is the union of these two schemas, and this union is not a valid schema because it contains two different types named T. I think that Saxon is strictly following the rules as written in the spec, though it clearly does not have the desired outcome that redefinition should be "pervasive". However, to make this work as desired, without also allowing things that are clearly wrong (such as both redefines containing different redefinitions ot T) it is necessary to invent some rules which bear no resemblance to anything written in the specification. -- Configure bugmail: http://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 Tuesday, 2 September 2008 11:26:49 UTC