4104 2006-12-20 18:54:49 +0000 Transitive chameleon includes 2007-02-23 19:01:25 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Structures: XSD Part 1 1.0/1.1 both PC Windows 2000 RESOLVED INVALID resolved P2 normal --- 1 noah_mendelsohn cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 13264 0 noah_mendelsohn 2006-12-20 18:54:49 +0000 I was just reviewing the discussion of chameleon includes at [1]. It says: 2 One of the following must be true: 2.1 SII has a targetNamespace [attribute], and its ·actual value· is identical to the ·actual value· of the targetNamespace [attribute] of SII’ (which must have such an [attribute]). 2.2 Neither SII nor SII’ have a targetNamespace [attribute]. 2.3 SII has no targetNamespace [attribute] (but SII’ does). 3 The appropriate case among the following must be true: 3.1 If clause 2.1 or clause 2.2 above is satisfied, then the schema corresponding to SII’ must include not only definitions or declarations corresponding to the appropriate members of its own [children], but also components identical to all the ·schema components· of I. 3.2 If clause 2.3 above is satisfied, then the schema corresponding to the <include>d item's parent <schema> must include not only definitions or declarations corresponding to the appropriate members of its own [children], but also components identical to all the ·schema components· of I, except that anywhere the ·absent· target namespace name would have appeared, the ·actual value· of the targetNamespace [attribute] of SII’ is used. In particular, it replaces ·absent· in the following places: 3.2.1 The {target namespace} of named schema components, both at the top level and (in the case of nested type definitions and nested attribute and element declarations whose code was qualified) nested within definitions; 3.2.2 The {namespace constraint} of a wildcard, whether negated or not; Clause 2.3 seems to have effect only in the case that the including schema document has an explicit targetNamespace attribute. The result seems to be that if the included chameleon schema document itself issues an include, that grandchild schema document will not be subject to chameleon processing, even if it lacks a targetNamespace attribute. Is this intentional? If not, then probably it's a bug that should be addressed. Noah [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PER-xmlschema-1-20040318/#compound-schema 14062 1 cmsmcq 2007-02-22 20:53:50 +0000 There does seem to be a bug here, but it's the use of the phrase "the schema corresponding to the <include>d item's parent <schema>" instead of "the schema corresponding to SII'" or "the schema corresponding to the <include>ing item's parent <schema>". Clause 3.2 calls for including, and performing namespace munging on, not only those components corresponding to source declarations in schema document SII, but all components in I, the schema corresponding to SII. If SII contains <xsd:include> elements pointing to other schema documents without a target namespace, the components derived from the source declarations in those schema documents are part of schema I, and are thus subject to namespace munging just like those whose source declarations are in I. The wording looks like an error only when the reader fails to observe that the rule defines the result of chameleon include not in terms of the set of source declarations from which components are to be constructed, but in terms of the schema constructed from the included schema document. 14081 2 cmsmcq 2007-02-23 19:01:25 +0000 During today's call, the Working Group decided against taking action on this issue, and to close it with the disposition INVALID. That means that we do not expect any change in the 1.1 spec to address the concern raised here, because we believe that no real issue is raised. (In view of the tight time frame, this decision may be reopened and revisited on next week's call.) Accordingly, I'm marking this issue as resolved. Noah, as the originator of this issue, you can signal your agreement with (or at least: acquiescence in) this decision by marking the issue CLOSED, or you can indicate your dissatisfaction with the decision by changing the status to REOPENED. If we don't hear from you in a couple of weeks, we'll assume you acquiesce and the issue will be marked CLOSED.