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 5200 - Not ##defined. Use ##definedSibling
Summary: Not ##defined. Use ##definedSibling
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Structures: XSD Part 1 (show other bugs)
Version: 1.1 only
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P1 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL:
Whiteboard: nis cluster
Keywords: resolved
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2007-10-15 17:26 UTC by Pete Cordell
Modified: 2009-02-20 16:42 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:


Attachments
Shows a change proposal intended to resolve bug 5200 (166.28 KB, text/html)
2008-05-03 01:24 UTC, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Details

Description Pete Cordell 2007-10-15 17:26:50 UTC
The WG has asked for feedback on applicablity of ##defined in xs:any notQName attributes.  

It is my opinion that ##defined is too broad, and just because an element or attribute name has been used elsewhere in a schema does not mean that a structure is unlikely in future to be extended with the name (perhaps with different semantics.

However, stopping a schema fragment like:
   <xs:element name='name' type='string'/>
   <xs:element name='title' type='string'/>
   <xs:any ???/>

matching an instance of:
   <name>Bob</name>
   <title>Mr</title>
   <name>Jumbo</name>

seems highly desirable.

Hence a keyword of #definedSibling that prevents an xs:any matching the name of any defined sibling is desirable.
Comment 1 David Ezell 2008-01-24 22:42:36 UTC
WG agrees that adding ##definedSibling is the right way to resolve this issue, while preserving ##defined.

Pete,
Please let us know if you agree with this direction toward resolution of your issue. If we do not hear from you in the next two weeks, we will assume you agree with the WG decision.

Comment 2 Pete Cordell 2008-02-19 11:40:07 UTC
(Apologies for not responding earlier... The domain name I receive these messages on temporarily went out of action.)

This is fine with me.  Thanks.
Comment 3 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2008-05-03 01:24:19 UTC
Created attachment 550 [details]
Shows a change proposal intended to resolve bug 5200

The XML Schema WG today approved the attached wording proposal 
intended to resolve this issue by defining a ##definedSibling 
keyword for use in the notQName attribute of wildcards.
Comment 4 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2008-05-03 01:29:20 UTC
With the adoption of the wording proposal attached to this bug report,
the XML Schema WG believes that this issue has been resolved.  I am 
changing the keyword field and the record status accordingly.

This update to the Bugzilla record should cause email to be sent to Pete
Cordell, the originator of the issue, to whom in particular the following
remarks are addressed.

Thank you for raising this issue.  The wording adopted by the WG for
this change is shown in the attached document; if you could review it,
and let us know whether you think the wording changes shown successfully
resolve the issue, we'd be grateful.  To indicate your assent to the final
wording proposal, please update the Bugzilla record by shifting it from
RESOLVED to CLOSED.  If something is wrong and you cannot assent, please
change the status from RESOLVED to REOPENED (and explain what's wrong).
If we don't hear from you in a reasonable amount of time (at least two
weeks), we will take your silence as indicating assent.  
Comment 5 Pete Cordell 2008-05-07 14:32:31 UTC
Over all this looks very good to me.  There's just a few things I would like to check before closing it.

1) (The main issue) I don't think it's relevant to discuss attributes when talking about ##definedSibling.  Surely an attribute wildcard can never match an already defined attribute sibling anyway.  Assuming I haven't missed something (!), it may be appropriate to just remove the bits that mention attributes, or (better?) add a note to say that ##definedSibling is not applicable to the attribute wildcard case.

2) Maybe more of a tool chain issue, but ##definedSibling is not included as part of NotQName in the "XML Representation Summary: any Element" table in 3.10.2.

Just to let you know, as I'm not sure whether the above are issues or not, I've left the status as Resolved/Fixed.
Comment 6 Pete Cordell 2008-05-10 08:12:20 UTC
As Michael seems to be (understandably) busy I've changed the status of this to REOPENED so that it's not missed when a sweep of that database is done.  I hope this is the right thing to do.
Comment 7 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2008-05-23 23:55:43 UTC
Reopening the issue clearly was the right thing to do, since it did make
me look at it again and note the remaining points.  Since these appear to
be editorial rather than substantive, I'm marking the issue editorial
(although that keyword applies strictly speaking to what remains now, not to
the original issue).  That means in turn that this may be dealt with after,
rather than before, the WG issues the next working draft.
Comment 8 Sandy Gao 2009-02-09 16:03:20 UTC
About the 2 issues raised in comment #5:

1. In fixing bug 6162, ##definedSibling is disallowed in attribute wildcard.

2. ##definedSibling is now included as part of notQName in 3.10.2.

Both changes can be verified in the 3rd LC draft:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-xmlschema11-1-20090130/

Suggest to mark this bug as resolved+fixed.
Comment 9 Pete Cordell 2009-02-09 20:56:32 UTC
Looks good.  Thanks.