- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:31:30 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6193 Summary: clarify ##defined and ##sibling definitions Product: XML Schema Version: 1.1 only Platform: Macintosh OS/Version: Mac System 9.x Status: ASSIGNED Keywords: editorial, needsDrafting Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: Structures: XSD Part 1 AssignedTo: cmsmcq@w3.org ReportedBy: cmsmcq@w3.org QAContact: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org In bug 6010, John Arwe wrote: 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. Each of these paragraphs indicates a need for clarification. Editors to draft suitable clarifications. -- 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 Thursday, 30 October 2008 16:31:40 UTC