This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
With respect to the schemaLocation attribute of import, he REC says "It is not an error for the application schema reference strategy to fail." It says something similar for the schemaLocation attribute of include and redefine. It _doesn't_ say this wrt xsi:schemaLocation, but I believe it is reasonable to carry the above over to this case. See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2003JulSep/0020.html
On the call of 23 February 2007 the Working agreed to class this issue as editorial.
A wording proposal including changes for this issue went to the WG on 7 February 2008: http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.consent.200801.html#composition (member-only link).
The 'Structures Omnibus 1' proposal mentioned in an earlier comment was adopted by the XML Schema Working Group today. http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.consent.200801.html (member-only link) The XML Schema WG believes that the changes adopted today resolve this issue fully. I'm changing its status accordingly. The change in status should cause email to be sent to the originator of this issue, to whom the following request is addressed. Please review the changes adopted and let us know if you agree with this resolution of your issue, by adding a comment to the issue record and changing the Status of the issue to Closed. Or, if you do not agree with this resolution, please add a comment explaining why. If you wish to appeal the WG's decision to the Director, then also change the Status of the record to Reopened. If you wish to record your dissent, but do not wish to appeal the decision to the Director, then change the Status of the record to Closed. If we do not hear from you in the next two weeks, we will assume you agree with the WG decision.
If I'm looking at the right part of the proposed revised spec, it says: > It is not an error for such an attempt to > fail, but failure may cause less than complete > ·assessment· outcomes. The phrase "less than complete" doesn't seem quite right. Let's say I list a few schema documents in schemaLocations and some of them resolve and some of them don't. I think the possible consequences include: * Things that should have validated don't (e.g. because we were doing strict validation and couldn't find a declaration) * Things that shouldn't validate did (e.g. the missing schemaDocument would have redefined some type, restricting it to validate less than the original) * Schema composition failed (e.g. some type referenced another as its base, and the definition for the base was never found) * In the case of LAX validation, an element that would otherwise have been validated against an expicit element declaration was not. * Probably others. I can see why we might describe the LAX case as resulting in a "less than complete outcome", but I'm not convinced that phrase is the right choice for the other cases. If my analysis is correct, I wonder if it might be better to say: "...but failure may affect the determination of validity for some or all elements or attributes, may result in validity not being assessed at all for some or all elements or attributes, or may create a situation in which a schema suitable for use in assessment could not be constructed." Wordy, but more accurate I think. If someone can propose something shorter that seems effective, I'd probably be in favor of that. Noah