6452 2009-01-19 21:14:07 +0000 scds extensibility 2009-04-27 15:55:15 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema SCDS: XML Schema Component Designators 1.1 only PC Windows XP CLOSED FIXED decided P2 normal --- 1 johnarwe holstege David_E3 www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 23165 0 johnarwe 2009-01-19 21:14:07 +0000 My mental parser is having a hard time with how the extensibility of accessors and axes is handled. For example, [19] Axis ::= 'schemaAttribute' '::' | 'schemaElement' '::' | ...| ExtensionAxis [23] ExtensionAxis ::= QName '::' When my code encounters the string "schemaElement::foo", how exactly does it know whether to treat schemaElement as a QName and apply the current xmlns= binding or to treat is as 'the special string' (which seems to be equivalent to saying it is really a local name with an implicit namespace == XML Schema 1.1). The bifurcation of not using a QName for Schema-defined axes and then making all extensions use QNames seems unnecessary (albeit, more compact in the normal case perhaps). I react pretty much the same way to accessors in general, and to the strings returned by component-kind() (4.5.1 component-kind Accessor). It seems like they should all by QNames, with a Schema-defined namespace in the case of entities defined by the Schema wg. FWIW, this is not an academic issue at all. Existing specs, e.g. SML, define their own identity constraint schema components. If it becomes necessary at some point to reconcile them with SCDS, consumers would be getting back results from component-kind(Identity‑Constraint Definition) of "identity-constraint-definition" and (presumably) component-kind(sml:Identity‑Constraint Definition) of "sml:identity-constraint-definition" - which gets one back to the same ambiguity I started with on how to distinguish what is, from the description I see here, a string, from a QName that happens to lack an explicit ns prefix. 23717 1 David_E3 2009-02-13 16:57:08 +0000 RESOLVED: Make a proposal along the lines of treat unprefixed axis names as in a magic (possibly null) namespace, and names in that namespace are reserved. RESOLUTION: Ask the editor to draft a change which a) decides on a namespace for the names of component-kinds to be in b) modifies the return value of component-kind() to be expanded names in that namespace. 24914 2 David_E3 2009-04-24 17:57:30 +0000 On the telcon, the WG discussed the following proposal. http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/xmlschema-current/SCD/scds-omni20090326-diff.html And adopted it with one ammendment: In section 4.2.1 the sentence first sentence now reads: "The schema component axes defined in this document are considered to be names in no namespace." This omnibus proposal is intended to close: bug 6450 bug 6451 bug 6452 24917 3 johnarwe 2009-04-24 19:45:04 +0000 4.2.1 from: component axes specifically enumerated in production for Axis. to : component axes specifically enumerated in the production for Axis. or to : component axes specifically enumerated in the Axis production. 24928 4 holstege 2009-04-27 15:26:12 +0000 Accepted comment #3 as an editorial suggestion. I went with the second alternative as I think it reads a little better. Change will be in next draft. If you are satisfied with this resolution, please indicate that by closing the bug. 24932 5 johnarwe 2009-04-27 15:55:15 +0000 sounds mahvelous