This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 20100 - Add missing import schema statement
Summary: Add missing import schema statement
Status: RESOLVED INVALID
Alias: None
Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
Classification: Unclassified
Component: XQuery 3 & XPath 3 Test Suite (show other bugs)
Version: Working drafts
Hardware: PC Linux
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: O'Neil Delpratt
QA Contact: Mailing list for public feedback on specs from XSL and XML Query WGs
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2012-11-27 16:14 UTC by Sorin Nasoi
Modified: 2013-01-21 16:54 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description Sorin Nasoi 2012-11-27 16:14:21 UTC
The 60 test cases in "prod-OrderByClause" test set( http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2011/QT3-test-suite/prod/OrderByClause.xml?rev=1.8;content-type=text%2Fplain)
that are using the "orderdata" environment are missing the corresponding import schema statement in the actual tests.

The "orderdata" environment uses a validated document that is bound as context item but the tests are not importing the "http://www.w3.org/XQueryTestOrderBy" schema used to validate the context item.
Comment 1 Michael Kay 2012-11-27 17:24:14 UTC
It should not be necessary to import the schema unless the query actually references types in the schema by name.

We make this much clearer in XQuery 3.0: form 2.5.5 "An XQuery 3.0 implementation must be able to determine relationships among the types in type annotations in an XDM instance and the types in the in-scope schema definitions (ISSD)." In other words, if a type annotation is present at run-time in the input document, that is supposed to tell the query processor all it needs to know about the type at run-time. You only need an import schema if the query processor needs compile-time information about types, and that's only needed if the query contains expression that refer to types by name.
Comment 2 Michael Kay 2013-01-21 16:54:09 UTC
As there has been no response to my comment #1 I am closing the bug as "invalid". Please re-open if you still feel the tests are wrong.