5148 2007-10-08 17:06:20 +0000 inconsistent target ns description 2008-10-14 20:40:54 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Structures: XSD Part 1 1.1 only PC Windows XP CLOSED FIXED terminology cluster resolved P2 normal --- 1 johnarwe cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 17067 0 johnarwe 2007-10-08 17:06:20 +0000 In some places, e.g. but not limited to 3.6.2 and 3.7.2, {target ns} is described as "The ·actual value· of the targetNamespace [attribute] of the ancestor schema element information item." In other places, e.g. 3.4.2, the same property is described differently "The ·actual value· of the targetNamespace [attribute] of the <schema> ancestor element information item if present, otherwise ·absent·." They should be consistent. Which is correct depends upon whether or not absent is considered an actual value (I suspect it is not). 18160 1 cmsmcq 2007-12-27 01:07:43 +0000 Thank you for the comment. The current text of the spec is a bit coy regarding 'absent' values. The definition of the term does in fact present it as a (special) value, but it's unlike normal values: it's not a member of any of the sets of possible values specified for any property, and the spec wants to maintain a dignified agnosticism about whether an implementation actually stores a value (or a bit pattern representing a value), or stores nothing at all. In short, 'absent' is a special case in much the same way that NULL is a special case in SQL. Part of the awkwardness in the passages you cite stems from the fact that while 'absent' is a possible property value, it is (as you suspect) not strictly speaking an 'actual value'; those responsible for drafting the spec may not always have had that distinction properly in mind. It might be simpler for the reader, and involve no loss of correctness, to say once and for all in some appropriate place that when the value of a property is described as being the actual value of some element or attribute, and the element or attribute in question does not appear and thus lacks any actual value, then the property gets the value 'absent'. That would allow a number of sentences in the spec to become shorter and easier to read. But at the moment, I am speaking only for myself, and not on behalf of the Working Group. 22118 2 sandygao 2008-10-08 15:42:56 +0000 On 2008-09-26, the working group adopted a proposal to address this issue by using the following formulation consistently: "The ·actual value· of the targetNamespace [attribute] of the <schema> ancestor element information item if present, otherwise ·absent·." The proposal (along with changes for other bugs) can be found at (member-only): http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.editorial0809.html John, if you are satisfied with this resolution, please indicate so by changing the bug's status to CLOSED. If you're not happy, please say why and REOPEN it instead. Thanks.