- From: Kasimier Buchcik <K.Buchcik@4commerce.de>
- Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 11:28:09 +0200
- To: Kasimier Buchcik <kbuchcik@4commerce.de>
- Cc: ML-xml-schema-dev <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Hi, On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 12:08 +0200, Kasimier Buchcik wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 10:30 +0100, Henry S. Thompson wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > 1) I think it's a bug that XSV allows an import of the same (=none in > > this case) namespace as that of the enclosing schema doc. > > OK. Would a schema processor be considered as not working correctly > if ruling out such imports, because Henry said he thinks it's a bug > otherwise? ;-) OK. I'll disallow such an import in Libxml2. Additional tests with Saxon 8.5.1 and IBM's SQC yielded that none of the 4 schema processors I used for testing thinks that this is invalid. So please bark loud if you change your mind. > > 2) If it were an include (and it looks like XSV is treating it as > > such) then yes, the results would be eligible for chameleon renaming. > > > > 3) If it were a legal import, e.g. of a non-null namespace, then the > > results would, obviously, not be eligible. > > > 4) The whole logic of import/(chameleon) include/redefine needs to be, > > and will be, cleaned up in XML Schema 1.1. > > Good. I refer here to XML Schema 1.0 and hope that the > schema people don't get tired to try to clarify such cases for XML > Schema 1.0 to the most possible extent. 1.0 will accompany us for > a long time until 1.1 becomes a recomendation; it will > take time for schema authors to migrate to 1.1; plus not all > schemas will be rewritten for 1.1. > > Woudn't it be better to clean this up in XML Schema 1.0 as an > erratum and then just take over to XML Schema 1.1? Why leaving > 1.0 here in a diffuse state? Regards, Kasimier
Received on Thursday, 6 October 2005 09:31:51 UTC