5263 2007-11-12 10:34:07 +0000 Errors in the S4SD 2008-02-08 23:38:56 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Structures: XSD Part 1 1.1 only PC Windows XP RESOLVED FIXED S4SD cluster resolved P1 normal --- 1 mike cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 17667 0 mike 2007-11-12 10:34:07 +0000 In the schema for schema documents published as Appendix A, there are three references to types that are missing the xs: prefix. (a) in <xs:complexType name="assertion"> <xs:complexContent> <xs:extension base="xs:annotated"> <xs:attribute name="test" type="string"/> <xs:attribute name="xpathDefaultNamespace" type="xs:xpathDefaultNamespace"/> </xs:extension> </xs:complexContent> </xs:complexType> the first attribute should have type="xs:string" (b) in <xs:complexType name="altType"> <xs:annotation> <xs:documentation> This type is used for 'alternative' elements. </xs:documentation> </xs:annotation> <xs:complexContent> <xs:extension base="xs:annotated"> <xs:choice minOccurs="0"> <xs:element ref="xs:simpleType"/> <xs:element ref="xs:complexType"/> </xs:choice> <xs:attribute name="test" type="string" use="optional"/> <xs:attribute name="type" type="QName" use="optional"/> <xs:attribute name="xpathDefaultNamespace" type="xs:xpathDefaultNamespace"/> <xs:attribute name="id" type="xs:ID"/> </xs:extension> </xs:complexContent> </xs:complexType> the first two attributes should have type xs:string and xs:QName respectively. 17669 1 mike 2007-11-12 10:46:14 +0000 Furthermore, in the definition of altType, the definition of the id attribute should be removed, because it is a duplicate (it is already present in the type being extended). (Actually, the spec is open to interpretation here. The set of attribute uses is formed as a union of the attribute uses defined on the base type and the extended type, and the concept of union depends on the concept of component identity which is not clearly defined. If the two attribute uses are considered to be identical, then the union contains only one copy, so there is no error. But the validity of the S4SD shouldn't depend on this interpretation.) 18873 2 cmsmcq 2008-02-08 02:20:08 +0000 A wording proposal including changes for this issue went to the WG on 7 February 2008: http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.consent.200801.html#composition (member-only link). 18947 3 cmsmcq 2008-02-08 23:38:56 +0000 The wording proposal mentioned in comment #2 was accepted by the WG today. Accordingly, I'm marking this issue resolved. Michael, if you would check to make sure the changes do resolve the problem, and indicate your result by either closing or reopening the issue, it would be helpful. Thanks.