6948 2009-05-24 02:16:11 +0000 "attributes with non-schema namespace", missing definition 2010-11-10 17:07:11 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Structures: XSD Part 1 1.1 only All All CLOSED INVALID http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-1/ P2 normal --- 1 gandhi.mukul David_E3 cmsmcq gandhi.mukul mike www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 25276 0 gandhi.mukul 2009-05-24 02:16:11 +0000 In the XML Schema 1.1, structures spec, almost every "schema component" is defined with a description: {any attributes with non-schema namespace ...} for e.g., in xs:attribute declaration as below: <attribute default = string fixed = string form = (qualified | unqualified) id = ID name = NCName ref = QName targetNamespace = anyURI type = QName use = (optional | prohibited | required) : optional inheritable = boolean {any attributes with non-schema namespace ...}> Content: (annotation?, simpleType?) </attribute> The spec defines, "any attributes with non-schema namespace ..." for almost every XML Schema component, like: xs:attribute xs:element xs:complexType .. and so on But I cannot see definition in the spec, what all "attributes in non-schema namespace" can be there, for various Schema components. It seems, the term "any attributes with non-schema namespace ..." is not defined in the spec, either at a global level, or for individual components. The problem I have cited, is present in XSD 1.0 spec as well. Sorry, if I am missing something. Regards, Mukul 25277 1 mike 2009-05-24 09:03:47 +0000 You will find a more formal statement of what is allowed in the schema for schema documents, where most (or all?) elements have types that include <xs:anyAttribute namespace="##other" processContents="lax"/> I'm not sure if this answers your question. 25293 2 gandhi.mukul 2009-05-26 04:31:57 +0000 (In reply to comment #1) > You will find a more formal statement of what is allowed in the schema for > schema documents, where most (or all?) elements have types that include > > <xs:anyAttribute namespace="##other" processContents="lax"/> > > I'm not sure if this answers your question. Thanks, Mike for the answer. I can now understand this at a kind of surface. I'll go into deep to read relevant parts of the spec, to understand this more. I'll get back with further questions if any. Regards, Mukul 25627 3 gandhi.mukul 2009-06-21 08:00:23 +0000 I think, I understand this feature now. You could mark this bug report as invalid or closed. Regards, Mukul 25727 4 David_E3 2009-06-26 16:09:03 +0000 The WG expresses thanks for the discussion, an agrees to close the bug. 42356 5 David_E3 2010-11-10 17:07:11 +0000 The WG reported this bug as INVALID on 2009-05-24. We are closing this bug as requiring no futher work. If there are issues remaining, you can reopen this bug and enter a comment to indicate the problem. Thanks very much for the feedback.