4071 2006-12-12 15:54:00 +0000 particlesZ026 - duplicate attributes 2010-04-05 17:03:53 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Test Suite Microsoft tests 2006-11-06 PC Windows XP RESOLVED FIXED P2 normal --- 1 mike ht David_E3 public-xml-schema-testsuite oldest_to_newest 13143 0 mike 2006-12-12 15:54:00 +0000 In the Microsoft Particles test set, test group particlesZ026, the schema particlesZ026a.xsd has: <xs:complexType name="ItemType" abstract="true"> <xs:complexContent> <xs:extension base="StatementType"> <xs:attribute name="StatementAssembly" type="xs:string"/> <xs:attribute name="StatementClass" type="xs:string"/> </xs:extension> </xs:complexContent> </xs:complexType> <xs:complexType name="ManagedItemType"> <xs:complexContent> <xs:extension base="ItemType"> <xs:attribute name="Assembly" type="xs:string" use="required" /> <xs:attribute name="Class" type="xs:string" use="required" /> <xs:attribute name="StatementAssembly" type="xs:string" /> <xs:attribute name="StatementClass" type="xs:string"/> </xs:extension> </xs:complexContent> </xs:complexType> My reading of the spec is that this is invalid. The {attribute uses} on ManagedItemTypes consists of the union of the attributes defined in the two complexType declarations above. It's not defined exactly what "union" means (that is, how one decides whether two attribute uses are identical) but there is nothing in the spec to suggest eliminating attributes with duplicate names. The resulting schema component is therefore invalid under clause 5 of Schema Component Constraint: Complex Type Definition Properties Correct. The test metadata reports this schema document as valid. 13889 1 zafara 2007-02-02 19:19:49 +0000 Agreed that the expected outcome of this test should be invalid. We are following up with the WG to determine the process of updating the test suite. 20735 2 mike 2008-06-22 15:39:22 +0000 We concluded that the spec deliberately doesn't say whether these attribute uses are identical and therefore it is implementation-dependent whether this schema is valid. We think it is worth keeping the test because it probes this area where implementations can differ, but the expected results should allow both interpretations of the spec. Leaving it open for now because it's not immediately clear how to fix the tests. 32709 3 mike 2010-02-26 16:45:37 +0000 Noted that in 1.1 there is a "scope" property on the attribute declaration component which makes the two attribute declarations distinct, and therefore the attribute uses are distinct, and therefore this derivation-by-extension is definitely invalid. However, the spec still isn't very explicit in describing how to form the "union" of attribute uses. 32710 4 David_E3 2010-02-26 16:51:58 +0000 Resolution: Two versions of the test particlesZ026; the one for 1.0 marked as implementation-dependent, and the one for 1.1 marked as invalid. 34556 5 ht 2010-04-05 16:57:56 +0000 Made stable 1.1-only copy w. invalid schema test and no instance test. Marked original as 1.0-only, implDe 34557 6 ht 2010-04-05 17:03:53 +0000 Made stable 1.1-only copy w. invalid schema test and no instance test. Marked original as 1.0-only, implDe