- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 22:10:49 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11076 Summary: Element Declarations Consistent: comparing type tables Product: XML Schema Version: 1.1 only Platform: PC OS/Version: Windows NT Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: Structures: XSD Part 1 AssignedTo: David_E3@VERIFONE.com ReportedBy: mike@saxonica.com QAContact: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org CC: cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com Element Declarations Consistent (section 3.8.6.3) contains the rule: All their {type table}s are either all ·absent· or else all are present and have the same sequence of {alternatives} and the same {default type definition}. What does "same" mean? Is this an appeal to "component identity" covered by G.2 clause 4: "The identity of components is still underspecified (although a number of points have been clarified, e.g. by the specification of the {scope} property), with the result that some schemas can be interpreted either as conformant or as non-conformant, depending on the interpretation of the specification's appeals to component identity." If so, it appears to be different from other cases where the specification relies on component identity. In most such cases, a minimal definition of identity is that two components are identical if they are derived from the same declaration in a particular schema document. In this case, there is no way that the type tables for two different element declarations can be derived from the same source. So it seems this rule is inviting a "deep equality" test of some kind. If we are expecting any kind of interoperability, it would seem necessary to articulate the way in which this test is carried out. It's not easy: do we mandate, for example, that XPath expressions are compared in their lexical form as written, with no normalization? Do we require that the base URI is the same even if the processor knows it is not used? In the interests of interoperability, I would be inclined to replace the above rule by "All their {type table}s are ·absent·". -- 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 Saturday, 16 October 2010 22:10:51 UTC