Re: Included <schema>

Hi George,
    The XSD 1.1 spec at the same place mentions only this,

<quote>
1.2 It resolves to a <schema> element information item in a well-formed
information set.
 </quote>

The 1.1 spec doesn't say "which in turn corresponds to a valid schema."

I think, with an XSD 1.1 processor test.xsd would correspond to a valid
schema. With both XSD 1.1 and 1.0, m.xsd in isolation would be invalid
(since the element reference, <xs:element ref="a"/> within it cannot be
resolved).

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 3:18 PM, George Cristian Bina
<george@oxygenxml.com>wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I always thought that an included schema document may refer to components
> that are defined in the including <schema> even if they are not directly
> reachable if we start from the included schema.
>
> More clearly the following sample should be valid:
>
> test.xsd
> <xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/**2001/XMLSchema<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema>
> ">
>   <xs:include schemaLocation="m.xsd"/>
>   <xs:element name="root">
>     <xs:complexType>
>       <xs:sequence maxOccurs="unbounded">
>         <xs:element ref="content"/>
>       </xs:sequence>
>     </xs:complexType>
>   </xs:element>
>   <xs:element name="a" type="xs:string"/>
> </xs:schema>
>
> m.xsd
> <xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/**2001/XMLSchema<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema>"
> elementFormDefault="qualified"**>
>   <xs:element name="content">
>     <xs:complexType>
>       <xs:sequence minOccurs="0">
>         <xs:element ref="a"/>
>       </xs:sequence>
>     </xs:complexType>
>   </xs:element>
> </xs:schema>
>
> Now, the spec says in http://www.w3.org/TR/**xmlschema-1/#src-include<http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#src-include>
> :
> ***
> Schema Representation Constraint: Inclusion Constraints and Semantics
> In addition to the conditions imposed on <include> element information
> items by the schema for schemas, all of the following must be true:
> 1 If the ·actual value· of the schemaLocation [attribute] successfully
> resolves one of the following must be true:
> 1.1 [...]
> 1.2 It resolves to a <schema> element information item in a well-formed
> information set, which in turn corresponds to a valid schema.
> ***
>
> Does this "which in turn corresponds to a valid schema" mean that the
> above schema starting from test.xsd should be considered invalid because
> m.xsd is not valid itself?
>
> Neither Saxon EE nor Xerces report problems when validating test.xsd so my
> guess is that there is some other place in the spec that allow this case
> and maybe the "corresponds to a valid schema" here does not mean that the
> module itself is a valid schema but that all the modules that define
> components in the same namespace should form a valid schema.
> Anyway, I will appreciate some insight into this.
>
> Best Regards,
> George
> --
> George Cristian Bina
> <oXygen/> XML Editor, Schema Editor and XSLT Editor/Debugger
> http://www.oxygenxml.com
>
>


-- 
Regards,
Mukul Gandhi