- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:31:37 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16860 Summary: "Failure to resolve" in xs:include Product: XML Schema Version: 1.1 only Platform: PC OS/Version: All 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 The specification requires processors to behave differently depending on whether the schemaLocation in xs:include "fails to resolve" versus whether it successfully resolves and delivers something that is not a valid schema document. It should be noted that it may be very difficult to distinguish these two cases. For example, there are two tests schB8 and schE9 that attempt to use the schemaLocation http://foo/foo in xs:include and xs:import respectively. With some internet providers, this URI will fail to resolve. With other internet providers, it will resolve to an HTML document saying that the domain name does not exist and inviting the user to purchase it. (This HTML document will typically be parsed as XML and fail to parse.) So this distinction is entirely outside the implementor's control, and clauses requiring (with an emphatic MUST) the processor to distinguish the two cases are unenforceable. I think that despite the "MUST", a processor that takes the same action in both cases would be conformant. -- Configure bugmail: https://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 Wednesday, 25 April 2012 21:31:39 UTC