2826 2006-02-11 00:57:42 +0000 RQ-135 Consistency and validity for a set of schema components (component-consistency-and-validity) 2007-05-02 00:07:23 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Structures: XSD Part 1 1.1 only Other All RESOLVED LATER important, hard, composition cluster P4 normal --- 1 cmsmcq cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 8191 0 cmsmcq 2006-02-11 00:57:43 +0000 This issue was originally reported by Matthew Fuchs. On 10 June 2004 the WG adopted the following wording for this requirement: Eliminate errors at a distance. A legal schema remains legal if you add components to it, unless the components you add are themselves faulty or try to redefine components already present. The original wording follows: We call a set of schema components "valid" if it is transitively closed over references and contains no errors. We call two sets of schema components "consistent" if, for any namespace where they contain components from the same namespace, those components can be written using exactly the same transfer syntax. The proposed requirement is, that given two sets of schema components that are both transitively closed over references and valid, if they are consistent, then their union is transitively closed over references and valid. Matthew says: "I believe we currently have this property, or it's violations are so far at the limit, that no schemas would be affected by the change. On the other hand, this is a crucial property for customers, and they will be _very_, _very_ unhappy if we violate it. Maybe not right away, but they will when it starts to affect them." See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2002Nov/0106.html. This item was discussed in the meetings of 2003-10-24 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2003Oct/0085.html), 2003-12-05 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2003Dec/0043.html), 2004-01-08 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2004Jan/0009.html), 2004-01-15 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2004Feb/0094.html), and 2004-01-22 (http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/01/xml-schema-ftf-minutes.html). The WG formed task forces to prepare further work on this item in the meeting of 2004-02-27 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2004Feb/0141.html). This item was then discussed further in the meetings of 2004-03-18 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2004Mar/0060.html) and 2004-05-28 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2004May/0094.html). This item was classified as an opportunistic desideratum in the meeting of 2004-06-10 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2004Jun/0120.html). 14572 1 David_E3 2007-03-28 19:47:20 +0000 the Working Group lacks consensus not only on this issue, but on a large number of questions which would need to be clarified to make coherent discussion of this topic feasible. Resolved as LATER. 14962 2 cmsmcq 2007-05-02 00:07:23 +0000 [Interim report] I have been trying to find a current email address for Matthew Fuchs, the originator of this issue, so that he could be notified of the resolution of the issue for XML Schema 1.1, but I have not succeeded. I propose to leave this issue as RESOLVED instead of CLOSED while those efforts continue, and close it only when necessary.