This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 1890 - R-112: A question about QName Resolution (Schema Document)
Summary: R-112: A question about QName Resolution (Schema Document)
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Structures: XSD Part 1 (show other bugs)
Version: 1.0/1.1 both
Hardware: All All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: XML Schema WG
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: resolved
Depends on:
Blocks: 4363
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2005-08-26 13:38 UTC by Sandy Gao
Modified: 2009-04-21 19:21 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Sandy Gao 2005-08-26 13:38:08 UTC
Constraint "QName resolution (Schema Document)", bullet 4 states:

"4 its namespace name is either the target namespace of the schema document 
containing the QName or that schema document contains an <import> element 
information item the actual value of whose namespace [attribute] is identical 
to that namespace name." 
Does this mean that

<schema xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" targetNamespace="myNS">
  <element name="e" type="string"/>
</schema>
is invalid? (Because the schema namespace is neither the target namespace, nor 
imported by this document.)

The spec does mention:

"Simple type definitions for all the built-in primitive datatypes, namely 
string, boolean, float, double, number, dateTime, duration, time, date, gMonth, 
gMonthDay, gDay, gYear, gYearMonth, hexBinary, base64Binary, anyURI (see the 
Primitive Datatypes section of [XML Schemas: Datatypes]), as well as for the 
simple and complex ur-type definitions (as previously described), are present 
by definition in every schema. All are in the XML Schema {target namespace} 
(namespace name http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema ), have an atomic {variety} 
with an empty {facets} and the simple ur-type definition as their base type 
definition and themselves as {primitive type definition}. 
Similarly, simple type definitions for all the built-in derived datatypes (see 
the Derived Datatypes section of [XML Schemas: Datatypes]) are present by 
definition in every schema, with properties as specified in [XML Schemas: 
Datatypes] and as represented in XML in Schema for Schemas (normative)."

But I don't think "are present" directly leads to "can be accessed". Shouldn't 
bullet 4 of "QName resolution (Schema Document)" be changed to something like:

"4 one of the following must be true: 
4.1 all of the following must be true: 
4.1.1 its namespace name is identical to http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema . 
4.1.2 the kind specified is simple or complex type definition. 
4.1.3 its local name is identical to the name of one of the built-in types. 
4.2 either the target namespace of the schema document containing the QName or 
that schema document contains an <import> element information item the actual 
value of whose namespace [attribute] is identical to that namespace name." 

See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-
comments/2002JanMar/0459.html
Comment 1 Sandy Gao 2005-08-26 13:39:38 UTC
Discussed at the May 29, 2003 telecon [1]. Agreed to classify as an error 
w/erratum. Some discussion occurred re: what new text should be added, but no 
consensus reached on what was required to fix the problem.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2003May/0120.html
Comment 2 Sandy Gao 2007-04-02 13:40:53 UTC
This bug applies to both 1.0 and 1.1. It also affects bug 4363.
Comment 3 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2007-05-25 22:48:38 UTC
The WG reached phase-1 agreement on issue 4363 (which blocks this issue) 
on 11 May 2007.  The minutes of the call don't show that we said anything 
about whether the technical direction set for bug 4363 would resolve this 
bug or not, so I'm leaving the status keyword unchanged.  But in practice,
I expect that any wording proposal for 4363 will also resolve this bug.
(I.e. editor to chair: don't schedule time to discuss this until we have
a wording proposal.)
Comment 4 Sandy Gao 2007-06-04 14:47:10 UTC
Minor correction to comment #3. On 11 May 2007, we accepted a wording proposal on this issue. Marking it accordingly.

This issue blocks bug 4363, which still has an open question to answer.
Comment 5 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2007-06-18 14:15:52 UTC
The proposal adopted by the Working Group has now been integrated into
the status quo documents on the server; accordingly, I'm changing the
status to 'RESOLVED'.