This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Section 5.4.3 "Schema Bindings" currently says: "If an SML-IF consumer chooses to process the schemaBindings element and if the optional defaultSchema element is present, then an SML-IF consumer MUST compose a default schema from this element following rules 1 to 3 above, replacing SB in the text with DS (i.e., the /model/schemaBindings/defaultSchema element). Otherwise, an SML-IF consumers MUST compose a default schema using *all* schema documents included in the SML-IF document. An SML-IF consumer MUST use this default schema to validate those SML instance documents that are not included in any schemaBinding." This means that every instance document in the IF package is validated using some schema, either one that's explicit bound, or the default schema. In bug 5797, the WG clarified that SML model instance documents are allowed to not be bound to any schema. IF needs to be updated to allow this. Maybe we should add a new <noSchemaBinding> sub element under <schemaBindings>. It contains any number of <documentAlias> elements. If an instance document matches one of the <documentAlias>, then the default schema doesn't apply to it.
8/7 telecon resolution: [15:32] ginny: Proposal 1) to "add a new <noSchemaBinding> sub element under <schemaBindings>. It contains any number of <documentAlias> elements. If an instance document matches one of the <documentAlias>, then the default schema doesn't apply to it." Proposal 2) reword 'otherwise 2a: One alternative: "If the consumer does not process schemaBindings, OR if the optional defaultSchema element is absent, then ..." 2b: [I think leaving to the editors the choice between the alternative above and "Otherwise (if ... or if ...)" is the Right Thing. Editors, work it out.] Mark needsReview after editing done.
(In reply to comment #1) It has been pointed out on the public alias that it was confusing to list 2 proposals (the second having 2 alternatives). The intent was to capture from the minutes http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Aug/att-0018/20080807-sml-minutes.html#item08 the intent of the wg to make 2 separate changes, labeled "Proposal 1)" and "Proposal 2)" in comment #1. For Proposal 2), two alternative possible replacement texts were loosely discussed ("2a" and "2b"), with the decision on final text left up to the editors (since this will be marked needsReview after the editors decide on text and create a draft of the changes, the wg will have ample opportunity to review the editors' decision). Confirmation of this was solicited by the editors on the public alias in message http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Aug/0020.html
Fixed as proposed to sections 4.1, 4.4, 5.4.3, and Appendix A. See diff at: http://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fdev.w3.org%2Fcvsweb%2F~checkout~%2F2007%2Fxml%2Fsml%2Fbuild%2Fsml-if.html%3Frev%3D1.164%26content-type%3Dtext%2Fhtml%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fdev.w3.org%2Fcvsweb%2F~checkout~%2F2007%2Fxml%2Fsml%2Fbuild%2Fsml-if.html%3Frev%3D1.167%26content-type%3Dtext%2Fhtml%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1 (Note that diff also contains small fix for bug 5656.)
resolution in call on 8/14: Editors to add a paragraph similar to the one below. Needs review after the changes made. <ginny> Add a paragraph that describes what a consumer does if it does not process schemaBindings. It should construct a default schema from all schema documents and apply this schema to all instance documents.
Fixed per comment #4. Added the following paragraph to section 5.4.3. ==== Otherwise, if an SML-IF consumer chooses not to process the schemaBindings element, then the SML-IF consumer MUST compose a default schema using *all* schema documents included in the SML-IF document and MUST use this default schema to validate instance documents in the interchange model.
+1 to the fix in comment #5. It may be better to not mention "default" because there is no non-default schema in this case. Also it may be better to add an "all": "... MUST use this default schema to validate _all_ instance documents in the interchange model."
editorial nit: also suggest "all" in place of "*all*" and "_all_" I believe the "emphasis characters" were simply artifacts of the drafting process to help reviewers find the new/changed content. If the editors/wg wish to retain the emphasis through more traditional means, e.g. bold face, no objection.
Fixed per comments 6 and 7. Changed '*all*' to 'all' in this paragraph AND the previous set of bullet points. Removed the word 'schema'. Paragraph now reads: ============= Otherwise, if an SML-IF consumer chooses not to process the schemaBindings element, then the SML-IF consumer MUST compose a schema using all schema documents included in the SML-IF document and MUST use this schema to validate instance documents in the interchange model.
Forgot an 'all'. The paragraph now reads: ======== Otherwise, if an SML-IF consumer chooses not to process the schemaBindings element, then the SML-IF consumer MUST compose a schema using all schema documents included in the SML-IF document and MUST use this schema to validate all instance documents in the interchange model.
+1
Fixed an incorrect end tag for <noSchemaBinding> in the pseudo-schema.