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 2828 - RQ-155 State prohibition of use attribute on top-level attributes more clearly (topleveluse)
Summary: RQ-155 State prohibition of use attribute on top-level attributes more clearl...
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Structures: XSD Part 1 (show other bugs)
Version: 1.1 only
Hardware: Other All
: P4 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL:
Whiteboard: clarification cluster
Keywords: resolved
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-02-11 00:57 UTC by C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Modified: 2008-02-08 23:24 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2006-02-11 00:57:47 UTC
This issue was originally reported by Asir Vedamuthu / XML Schema WG.

Asir Vedamuthu raised the following issue initially as R-158
(http://www.w3.org/2001/05/xmlschema-rec-comments#pfitopLevelAttr):

This is a fragment from the Schema for Schemas

<xs:complexType name="topLevelAttribute">
  <xs:complexContent>
   <xs:restriction base="xs:attribute">
    <xs:sequence>
     <xs:element ref="xs:annotation" minOccurs="0"/>
     <xs:element name="simpleType" minOccurs="0" type="xs:localSimpleType"/>
    </xs:sequence>
    <xs:attribute name="ref" use="prohibited"/>
    <xs:attribute name="form" use="prohibited"/>
    <xs:attribute name="use" use="prohibited"/>
    <xs:attribute name="name" use="required" type="xs:NCName"/>
   </xs:restriction>
  </xs:complexContent>
</xs:complexType>

attribute 'use' is ruled out,

<xs:attribute name="use" use="prohibited"/>

However, the prose in section 3.2.3 (constraints on XML
Representation) doesn't say anything about the 'use' attribute.

I believe that the schema for schemas is correct and hope, the prose
will rule this out explicitly.

See the following for more info:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2002AprJun/0128.html

Henry Thompson was skeptical:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2002AprJun/0138.html

Resolved at the July 2003 f2f
(http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2003/07/xml-schema-ftf-minutes.html#d0e513)
to defer to 1.1, adding it as a requirement.

Editors to draft sample for phase-1 discussion.

The underlying issue applies to both Structures and Datatypes.  This
Bugzilla entry is for Structures.
Comment 1 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2007-02-23 18:40:05 UTC
On the call of 23 February 2007 the Working agreed to class this issue as
editorial.
Comment 2 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2008-02-05 02:31:41 UTC
A wording proposal for this issue (among others) was sent to the XML
Schema WG on 4 February 2008.

http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.consent.200802.html (member-only link)

For some issues, the proposal is effectively to make no change;
see the Status section of the proposal for the specifics.
Comment 3 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2008-02-08 23:24:46 UTC
During its telcon today, the XML Schema WG accepted the 'Structures
Omnibus 2' proposal, which includes changes intended to resolve this
issue.  (Or, for some issues, contains the editors' proposal that the
issue should be closed without further changes.)
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.consent.200801.html (member-only link)

Accordingly, I'm marking the issue resolved.

The originator of this issue (or in some cases the individual,
acting on behalf of a group, who filed the comment) should receive 
an email notification of this change.

Please examine the changes 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.