- From: Xan Gregg <xan.gregg@jmp.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 11:25:03 -0400
- To: "Michael Kay" <mhk@mhk.me.uk>
- Cc: "'Henry S. Thompson'" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
On Sep 27, 2004, at 10:36 AM, Michael Kay wrote: >> It allows you to do so in the context of the schema corresponding to >> A. > > I don't see how one can read it that way. It specifically requires the > QName to be resolved to a component that belongs to the schema > corresponding to the document containing the QName. > I think you're right, and it's an error in the spec. Any appeal to "a schema corresponding to a schema document" appears suspect to me. What I think the constraint is really trying to say is that the QName user and the resolved component must be in the same schema. Looking at the QName resolution rules, I can't see how references to built-in types work without an explicit <import> for the XML Schema namespace. Must be missing something elsewhere. > In practice I am looking for guidance as to what schema I should be > using > for resolution. Is it the schema being used for validity assessment > (of an > instance)? But that doesn't work either, because if the schema used for > assessment is S, and S imports T, and T imports A, and A includes B > and C, > and B contains a reference to a component X defined in C, then X will > not be > a member of the set of components in S. I would think X is a member of C, so X is a member of A, so X is a member of T, so X is a member is S. However, commponents in S.XSD cannot reference X because there is no <import> in S.XSD for the namespace of X (Rule 4 of 3.15.3). xan
Received on Monday, 27 September 2004 15:25:14 UTC