4909 2007-08-02 02:51:22 +0000 Contradictory rules for user control of search for schema documents 2007-08-03 18:29:33 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Structures: XSD Part 1 1.1 only Macintosh All RESOLVED LATER P2 normal --- 1 cmsmcq cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 16017 0 cmsmcq 2007-08-02 02:51:22 +0000 Section D.2 of 1.1 says in part: General-purpose processors should support multiple methods for locating schema documents, and provide user control over which methods are used and how to fall back in case of failure. In other words, processors should but need not allow user control over methods of finding schema documents. But section 4.3.2 says in part (both in 1.0 and in 1.1): Accordingly whether a processor's default behavior is or is not to attempt such dereferencing [of namespace names], it MUST always provide for user-directed overriding of that default. In other words, processors MUST allow user control over at least one method of finding schema documents, namely dereferencing namespace names. At first glance, these appear to contradict each other. How should we resolve the contradiction? 16018 1 cmsmcq 2007-08-02 03:18:51 +0000 Also, D.2 is in a section on implementation-defined features, while section 4.3.2 describes methods of finding schema documents as "application and processor dependent". In 1.0, the distinction we now make between "implementation-dependent" and "implementation-defined" features is not made, but in 1.1 it is, and the wording should be made consistent by changing the description in 4.3.2. 16042 2 cmsmcq 2007-08-03 18:29:33 +0000 On its telcon today, the Working Group discussed this and other recently opened issues in the issues database and concluded (not without some pangs of regret) that for scheduling reasons it is not feasible for us to resolve this issue, or any of the others in the group, before we go to Last Call. On whether the issue / proposal discussed here is worth pursuing or not, the WG has taken no formal decision. Accordingly I am closing this issue with a disposition of LATER, not WONTFIX. That means the Working Group believes that the issue may be resolved in some future version of the spec, and encourages whatever Working Groups are responsible for future versions of the spec to consider this issue at an appropriate time. (If this bug relates both to 1.0 and 1.1, this resolution applies only to 1.1 and leaves undetermined how to handle it vis-a-vis 1.0.)