This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
In the XML Schema 1.1, structures spec, almost every "schema component" is defined with a description: {any attributes with non-schema namespace ...} for e.g., in xs:attribute declaration as below: <attribute default = string fixed = string form = (qualified | unqualified) id = ID name = NCName ref = QName targetNamespace = anyURI type = QName use = (optional | prohibited | required) : optional inheritable = boolean {any attributes with non-schema namespace ...}> Content: (annotation?, simpleType?) </attribute> The spec defines, "any attributes with non-schema namespace ..." for almost every XML Schema component, like: xs:attribute xs:element xs:complexType .. and so on But I cannot see definition in the spec, what all "attributes in non-schema namespace" can be there, for various Schema components. It seems, the term "any attributes with non-schema namespace ..." is not defined in the spec, either at a global level, or for individual components. The problem I have cited, is present in XSD 1.0 spec as well. Sorry, if I am missing something. Regards, Mukul
You will find a more formal statement of what is allowed in the schema for schema documents, where most (or all?) elements have types that include <xs:anyAttribute namespace="##other" processContents="lax"/> I'm not sure if this answers your question.
(In reply to comment #1) > You will find a more formal statement of what is allowed in the schema for > schema documents, where most (or all?) elements have types that include > > <xs:anyAttribute namespace="##other" processContents="lax"/> > > I'm not sure if this answers your question. Thanks, Mike for the answer. I can now understand this at a kind of surface. I'll go into deep to read relevant parts of the spec, to understand this more. I'll get back with further questions if any. Regards, Mukul
I think, I understand this feature now. You could mark this bug report as invalid or closed. Regards, Mukul
The WG expresses thanks for the discussion, an agrees to close the bug.
The WG reported this bug as INVALID on 2009-05-24. We are closing this bug as requiring no futher work. If there are issues remaining, you can reopen this bug and enter a comment to indicate the problem. Thanks very much for the feedback.