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 4909 - Contradictory rules for user control of search for schema documents
Summary: Contradictory rules for user control of search for schema documents
Status: RESOLVED LATER
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Structures: XSD Part 1 (show other bugs)
Version: 1.1 only
Hardware: Macintosh All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2007-08-02 02:51 UTC by C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Modified: 2007-08-03 18:29 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2007-08-02 02:51:22 UTC
Section D.2 of 1.1 says in part:

    General-purpose processors should support multiple methods for
    locating schema documents, and provide user control over which
    methods are used and how to fall back in case of failure.

In other words, processors should but need not allow user control
over methods of finding schema documents.

But section 4.3.2 says in part (both in 1.0 and in 1.1):

    Accordingly whether a processor's default behavior is or is not to
    attempt such dereferencing [of namespace names], it MUST always
    provide for user-directed overriding of that default.

In other words, processors MUST allow user control over at least
one method of finding schema documents, namely dereferencing
namespace names.

At first glance, these appear to contradict each other.  How should
we resolve the contradiction?
Comment 1 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2007-08-02 03:18:51 UTC
Also, D.2 is in a section on implementation-defined features,
while section 4.3.2 describes methods of finding schema
documents as "application and processor dependent".  In 1.0,
the distinction we now make between "implementation-dependent"
and "implementation-defined" features is not made, but in 
1.1 it is, and the wording should be made consistent by
changing the description in 4.3.2.
Comment 2 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2007-08-03 18:29:33 UTC
On its telcon today, the Working Group discussed this and other
recently opened issues in the issues database and concluded (not
without some pangs of regret) that for scheduling reasons it is not
feasible for us to resolve this issue, or any of the others in the
group, before we go to Last Call.

On whether the issue / proposal discussed here is worth pursuing or
not, the WG has taken no formal decision. Accordingly I am closing
this issue with a disposition of LATER, not WONTFIX.  That means the
Working Group believes that the issue may be resolved in some future
version of the spec, and encourages whatever Working Groups are
responsible for future versions of the spec to consider this issue
at an appropriate time.  (If this bug relates both to 1.0 and 1.1,
this resolution applies only to 1.1 and leaves undetermined how to
handle it vis-a-vis 1.0.)