[Bug 16181] New: should schZ014_b be valid?

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

[Bug 16181] New: should schZ014_b be valid?

Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16181

           Summary: should schZ014_b be valid?
           Product: XML Schema Test Suite
           Version: 2006-11-06
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows NT
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Microsoft tests
        AssignedTo: [hidden email]
        ReportedBy: [hidden email]
         QAContact: [hidden email]


In my opinion test schZ014_b of set MS-Schema2006-07-15 should be valid for
schema 1.1. Or is there any clause in the spec which prohibits empty values for
the targetNamespace attribute?

The anyURI datatype doesn't ("The ·lexical space· of anyURI is the set of
finite-length sequences of zero or more characters (as defined in [XML]) that
·match· the Char production from [XML].")

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 an empty value for targetNamespace is incoherent but not prohibited. Or is
there some other clause in the spec which prohibits empty strings for the
targetNamespace attribute?

--
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 16181] should schZ014_b be valid?

Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16181

David Ezell <[hidden email]> changed:

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

--- Comment #1 from David Ezell <[hidden email]> 2012-04-13 16:22:07 UTC ---
please see bug 16180.

--
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 16181] should schZ014_b 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=16181

Michael Kay <[hidden email]> changed:

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

--- Comment #2 from Michael Kay <[hidden email]> 2012-04-13 16:24:34 UTC ---
Noted that in part 1 there are only two remaining places where we talk of
something being "incoherent", and in the other case we associate the phrase
with a "must not" prohibition.

--
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 16181] should schZ014_b 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=16181

[hidden email] changed:

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

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