- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 20:35:42 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6010
Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mike@saxonica.com
--- Comment #2 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> 2008-09-02 20:35:41 ---
> I'm not sure what the actual boundary for 'defined' is nor how
> interoperable its definition really is.
I have to say I'm deeply uneasy about this one too. The idea that the validity
of a document should depend on how far the garbage collector has got in
clearing out unreferenced definitions from its schema cache is very
unappealing.
The fact that the problem already exists for the case of lax validation isn't
really an excuse for making it worse.
> More to the point, the recommendation is very clear that assessment depends
> on knowing what the schema is, I.e. which components comprise it.
And yet we go out of our way to make it impossible for users to determine what
the schema is (they can only give "hints"), by saying for example that an
unresolved reference or an unsatisifed xs:include does not invalidate the
schema, you just do validation without the relevant bits.
It's particularly the case in processing environments that are more complex
than the classic standalone document validation episode (for example, an XML
database scenario) that the total schema is unlikely to be under the complete
control of the user who initiates the validation.
Perhaps we should make it clearer that the "schema" (the set of components used
in a validation episode) is something the user must specify when initiating
validation, rather than everything the schema processor can find lying around
in memory. But to do that we need a clearer and more predictable story on
schema composition, that is, how such a schema is constructed from a set of
schema documents.
--
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 20:36:21 UTC