<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes" ?>
<!DOCTYPE bugzilla SYSTEM "https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/page.cgi?id=bugzilla.dtd">

<bugzilla version="5.0.4"
          urlbase="https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/"
          
          maintainer="sysbot+bugzilla@w3.org"
>

    <bug>
          <bug_id>5779</bug_id>
          
          <creation_ts>2008-06-21 15:52:10 +0000</creation_ts>
          <short_desc>QName resolution and xs:import</short_desc>
          <delta_ts>2009-04-20 22:20:56 +0000</delta_ts>
          <reporter_accessible>1</reporter_accessible>
          <cclist_accessible>1</cclist_accessible>
          <classification_id>1</classification_id>
          <classification>Unclassified</classification>
          <product>XML Schema</product>
          <component>Structures: XSD Part 1</component>
          <version>1.0/1.1 both</version>
          <rep_platform>PC</rep_platform>
          <op_sys>Windows NT</op_sys>
          <bug_status>CLOSED</bug_status>
          <resolution>FIXED</resolution>
          
          
          <bug_file_loc></bug_file_loc>
          <status_whiteboard></status_whiteboard>
          <keywords>resolved</keywords>
          <priority>P2</priority>
          <bug_severity>normal</bug_severity>
          <target_milestone>CR</target_milestone>
          
          
          <everconfirmed>1</everconfirmed>
          <reporter name="Michael Kay">mike</reporter>
          <assigned_to name="C. M. Sperberg-McQueen">cmsmcq</assigned_to>
          <cc>cmsmcq</cc>
    
    <cc>David_E3</cc>
          
          <qa_contact name="XML Schema comments list">www-xml-schema-comments</qa_contact>

      

      

      

          <comment_sort_order>oldest_to_newest</comment_sort_order>  
          <long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>20697</commentid>
    <comment_count>0</comment_count>
    <who name="Michael Kay">mike</who>
    <bug_when>2008-06-21 15:52:10 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>This results from consideration of test suite bug #4057.

It is felt that the spec could be clearer in saying that when a QName in a schema document is intended to refer to a schema component in another namespace, then it&apos;s an error (violates a schema representation constraint) if there is no xs:import for that namespace, and this doesn&apos;t fall within the cases where unresolved QNames can be resolved later, or where schemas with unresolved QNames can be used provided the referenced component isn&apos;t needed.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>21242</commentid>
    <comment_count>1</comment_count>
    <who name="C. M. Sperberg-McQueen">cmsmcq</who>
    <bug_when>2008-07-18 16:31:05 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>Discussed at the 17 July 2008 telcon.  Yes, this should be 
clarified.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>24666</commentid>
    <comment_count>2</comment_count>
    <who name="C. M. Sperberg-McQueen">cmsmcq</who>
    <bug_when>2009-04-13 00:21:12 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>A wording proposal intended to resolve this issue is at 

  http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.b5779.html
  (member-only link)

I&apos;m marking the issue needs-review, accordingly.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>24803</commentid>
    <comment_count>3</comment_count>
    <who name="David Ezell">David_E3</who>
    <bug_when>2009-04-17 16:51:52 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>5779: QName resolution and xs:import
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.b5779.html


Summary: bug report requests clarification of rules regarding
schema documents which refer to other namespaces without
importing them.

MSM&apos;s recommendation: not complicated but should be reviewed
before adoption.

</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>24870</commentid>
    <comment_count>4</comment_count>
    <who name="Sandy Gao">sandygao</who>
    <bug_when>2009-04-20 21:29:21 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>During its 2009-04-17 telecon, the schema WG adopted the proposal in comment #2 to address this issue.

With this change, the WG believes that the issue raised in this bug report is addressed. I&apos;m marking this RESOLVED accordingly.

Michael, if you would indicate your concurrence with or dissent from the WG&apos;s disposition of the comment by closing or reopening the issue, we&apos;ll be grateful. If we don&apos;t hear from you in the next two weeks, we&apos;ll assume that silence implies consent.</thetext>
  </long_desc>
      
      

    </bug>

</bugzilla>