This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Related to bug 4797. Changes made under 4797 may help improve or fix this issue. In the conformation section 8: "1. In each instance document in the model, the [validity] property of the root element and all of its attributes and descendants MUST NOT be "invalid" when schema validity is assessed with respect to the referenced XML Schema documents in the model's definition documents. [XML Schema Structures]" This has a few problems: - Instance documents are assessed with respect to "schemas", not "schema documents". - It's not clear what "the referenced XML Schema" mean. Instance documents do not need to reference schemas. As we've clarified, schemas are bound to instance documents (in ways not specified in the Core spec, but IF provides a way to do it.) - "the referenced schema" assumes there is only one schema bound to each instance, but IF allows the same instance to be validated against multiple schemas (with different bindings). Suggest to change the cited bullet to: "1. In each instance document in the model, the [validity] property of the root element and all of its attributes and descendants MUST NOT be "invalid" when schema validity is assessed with respect to any schema that is bound to this instance document. [XML Schema Structures] Note: How schemas are bound to instance document is not defined by this specification. Multiple schemas may be bound to the same instance document."
Resolution in 8/7 call - fix as per the proposal in Comment #1. Note to editors: This bug may have an overlap with 5797.
Fixed as proposed - changes are in section 8. 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.html%3Frev%3D1.243%26content-type%3Dtext%2Fhtml%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fdev.w3.org%2Fcvsweb%2F~checkout~%2F2007%2Fxml%2Fsml%2Fbuild%2Fsml.html%3Frev%3D1.244%26content-type%3Dtext%2Fhtml%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1#Conformance
A question on how precisely we intend to use "schema" vs "schema document(s)". I see that the editors used the exact proposed wording (A Good Thing), I also remember Sandy saying that those words were written somewhat hastily and might need to be tweaked. IIRC, Schema folks use "schema" to mean the set of "in memory" schema components used to assess the validity of an instance, without regard to the origin of said components. Thus, with respect to a single validity assessment episode, it is always singular. IIRC, Schema folks use "schema document(s)" to mean one or more documents, that after parsing, result in schema components (a schema) being built. ---------- Excerpt 1: In each instance document in the model, the [validity] property of the root element and all of its attributes and descendants MUST NOT be "invalid" when schema validity is assessed with respect to any schema that is bound to this instance document. [ XML Schema Structures ] Comment: exactly matches my IIRC definitions. "any schema" is valid because in http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5797#c2 the wg explicitly decided that, for any given model instance document, 0 schema documents might be bound to it... and I assume (Schema folks kindly confirm) this means it is possible that no schema (perhaps more precisely, a schema containing zero schema components) is used to assess the instance (laxly, per 5797). ---------- Excerpt 2: Note: How schemas are bound to instance documents is not defined by this specification. Multiple schemas may be bound to the same instance document. Comment: by my IIRC definitions, should be changed as follows from: Multiple schema s may be bound to : Multiple schema documents may be bound At this point I am neither advocating this nor proposing it, simply trying to motivate our Schema experts to think about it in advance of this week's meeting.
> from: Multiple schema s may be bound > to : Multiple schema documents may be bound I did mean "schemas" in the proposal. In IF <schemaBindings>, it's possible that the same instance document appears under more than one <schemaBinding>s, which means that instance is bound to more than one *schemas*. If this sentence becomes a source of confusion, maybe we can try: "Multiple schemas may be bound to the same instance document. Each schema may be constructed from multiple schema documents." This does run the risk of repeating things mentioned earlier, e.g. those in the conformance requirement list.
resolution on 8/14: fix accepted.