[Bug 16180] New: should schZ014_a be valid?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Bug 16180] New: should schZ014_a be valid?

Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16180

           Summary: should schZ014_a be valid?
           Product: XML Schema Test Suite
           Version: 2006-11-06
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Microsoft tests
        AssignedTo: [hidden email]
        ReportedBy: [hidden email]
         QAContact: [hidden email]


I don't find a clause in the XSD 1.1 spec which makes test schZ014_a of set
MS-Schema2006-07-15 invalid. The most likely one - src-import.1.2 - isn't
violated in my opinion, because a namespace attribute is present, but with
empty value.

Section 3.17.2 XML Representations of Schemas says: "...supplying an empty
string for targetNamespace is incoherent, and is not the same as not specifying
it at all."

So in my opinion also src-import.1.1 isn't violated, because the empty value of
the present namespace attribute is not the same as a not specified
targetNamespace.

--
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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Bug 16180] should schZ014_a be valid?

Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16180

Michael Kay <[hidden email]> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[hidden email]

--- Comment #1 from Michael Kay <[hidden email]> 2012-04-13 16:18:41 UTC ---
Personal response: I would contend that there are three "reasonable"
interpretations of <xsl:import namespace=""/>:

(a) it's an error

(b) it's equivalent to omitting the namespace attribute

(c) it's equivalent to omitting the xsl:import element

I think the spec currently doesn't give any support to any of these
interpretations, and my preference would be for (a).

Saxon currently adopts (b), which means this schema document is invalid because
the namespace is the same as the target namespace of the containing schema
document.

--
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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Bug 16180] should schZ014_a be valid?

Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16180

David Ezell <[hidden email]> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |needsAgreement
                 CC|                            |[hidden email]

--
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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Bug 16180] should schZ014_a be valid?

Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16180

--- Comment #2 from David Ezell <[hidden email]> 2012-05-04 16:27:02 UTC ---
discussed on the telcon
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2012Apr/att-0004/2012-04-13telcon.htm

--
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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Bug 16180] should schZ014_a be valid?

Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16180

David Ezell <[hidden email]> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|needsAgreement              |needsDrafting

--- Comment #3 from David Ezell <[hidden email]> 2012-05-04 16:34:06 UTC ---
Resolved: to make the empty string invalid in the spec, and mark the bug as
needsDrafting.

--
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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Bug 16180] should schZ014_a be valid?

Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16180

[hidden email] changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 OS|All                         |Windows 3.1

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.