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 6600 - particlesZ031 seems to be wrong
Summary: particlesZ031 seems to be wrong
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 5943
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema Test Suite
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Microsoft tests (show other bugs)
Version: 2006-11-06
Hardware: Other Linux
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Henry S. Thompson
QA Contact: XML Schema Test Suite mailing list
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2009-02-19 17:34 UTC by Tobias Koenig
Modified: 2009-02-19 18:20 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description Tobias Koenig 2009-02-19 17:34:36 UTC
Hej,

particlesZ031 is marked as valid however it seems to be invalid.
The schema test tries to inherit a complex type with complex content
from a complex type with simple content. Schema 1.0 allows to constructs
the derived type with a "simple" content, however according to Schema 1.1
the content should be "empty" (I guess 1.1 tries to be more explicit than 1.0 here). However if the derived type as an "empty" content, than there is no
rule in "Schema Component Constraint: Derivation Valid (Extension)" that would
make it a valid extension. So the test case should be marked as invalid.

Ciao,
Tobias
Comment 1 Michael Kay 2009-02-19 18:08:24 UTC
Please see bug #5943 which was raised against the spec on this one.

My analysis is/was:

In XSD 1.0 this is legal, by mistake. The rules should stop you deriving complexContent from simpleContent, but they don't, and you end up with simpleContent even though you said you wanted complexContent.

In XSD 1.1 this is illegal. It has been made illegal by the rather artificial device of generating a schema component that is deliberately invalid (it fails the consistency tests for schema components). In discussion of bug #5943 I appealed against the use of this technique because I felt it made life so difficult for readers of the spec, but I lost.
Comment 2 Tobias Koenig 2009-02-19 18:20:11 UTC
Ok, that is a duplicate, didn't found #5943 before :(

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 5943 ***