W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > July to September 2008

[Bug 6010] New: [schema11] priority feedback responses

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:17:48 +0000
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-6010-703@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6010

           Summary: [schema11] priority feedback responses
           Product: XML Schema
           Version: 1.1 only
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows XP
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Structures: XSD Part 1
        AssignedTo: cmsmcq@w3.org
        ReportedBy: johnarwe@us.ibm.com
         QAContact: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org


3.3.4.6 Schema-Validity Assessment (Element) - fallback to lax validation
SML found it necessary to specify fallback to lax validation in its specs
because Schema 1.0 had not done so.

3.4.4.5 Conditional Type Substitutable in Restriction
Practitioners in the industry standards area have generally been arguing for
schema-based mechanisms with more flexibility of late.  While I am unsure how
often they use restrictions, where they do this would likely be viewed as a
positive decision.

3.10.1 The Wildcard Schema Component
"The keywords defined and sibling allow a kind of wildcard which matches only
elements not declared in the current schema ..."
Given that "schema" is, according to 2.1 which has the closest thing I could
find to a formal definition of this word, just a set of schema components, I'm
not sure what the actual boundary for 'defined' is nor how interoperable its
definition really is.  A schema processor is allowed to put almost literally
anything (extra, i.e. unused) into the schema (set of components) used for
assessment, no?  If there was some concept of a "minimal schema", at say schema
document granularity, it might be clearer...of course then if someone
re-factors the documents, ymmv.
Conceptually I have no objection, I'm just not sure right now how wide its net
casts.

3.10.1 The Wildcard Schema Component
"The keywords defined and sibling allow a kind of wildcard which matches only
elements not declared in the current schema ..."
Similar question for sibling.  This is somewhat better defined than schema, but
the language seems loose. {ns constraint} clause 6 talks about the containing
type decl; here, I wonder if that should read very literally, or to include all
of what look like sibling elements in an instance but are attributed to {base
type definition} items, transitively.

4.2.3 Including modified component definitions (<redefine>)
Given the many recommendations "on the street" to avoid redefine completely, I
expect its deprecation to be no issue.  Some of these recommendations no doubt
came from lack of database support from some vendors, which may have now
changed.


-- 
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 14:18:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:09:12 UTC