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

[Bug 6011] New: [schema11] base URI comments

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:21:14 +0000
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-6011-703@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>


           Summary: [schema11] base URI comments
           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

3.13.2 XML Representation of Assertion Schema Components
XML Mapping Summary for XPath Expression Property Record says
"{base URI}  The [base URI] of the host element. "
I think your existing text is OK in its use of "host element" as a kind of
"parameter" within your spec.  I found no conflicting definitions at least.

1.4 Dependencies on Other Specifications simply lists Infoset as one of the
dependent specs.
Appendix E Required Information Set Items and Properties (normative) lists a
number of infoset properties as being required 
[base URI] has not been added it appears, and should be given your XPath
expression schema component definition, no?
Not to mention schemaLocation issues from 1.0, where one might argue it should
have been cited (if the timing was right wrt Infoset, but presumably it was)

4.2.2 Assembling a schema <include> clause 1
4.2.3 <redefine> clause 2
4.2.4 <override> clause 2 <import> clause 2
4.3.2 How schema definitions are located on the Web - item 3
If the schemaLocation value is a relative reference, what base URI is used to
resolve it? 
[base URI] of the schemaLocation's parent element?

4.3.2 How schema definitions are located on the Web - item 3
"It is not an error for such an attempt to fail, ..."
Given the requirement on <override> (MUST resolve), is the stmt above actually
true as stated any more?
I might argue the same for <redefine>.
Both 4.2.3 <redefine> clause 2 and 4.2.4 <override> clause 2 seem to contradict
the unqualified "is not" above.

Note that some people have argued, very recently, that the lack of any
dependency in Schema 1.0 on [XML Base], including indirectly via [base URI],
is evidence of a lack of support for XML Base within W3C and grounds for not
depending on XML Base in new specs.  It would be helpful to be explicit about
the handling of base URIs in Schema 1.1 at least, so we can proceed on to newer
"discussions" :-)

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 14:21:49 UTC

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