This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
This issue was originally reported by Lisa Martin. There are various statements in the spec of the form: If some condition, x, is true, then, in the post-schema-validation infoset it has the properties a,b,c ... For example: If an element is valid with respect to a type definition, as per Element Locally Valid (Type), in the post-schema-validation infoset the item has a property ... Furthermore, the item has one of the following alternative sets of properties: [type definition] ... Is it true that if condition x does *not hold*, then the processor is *not permitted* to include properties a,b,c in the PSVI, even if such information is available? I'm assuming this is what was intended, based on the clarifications drafted for the Query WG on the topic of PSVI. If this is the case, should the Structures spec clarify this? ...perhaps with wording similiar to: "The properties a, b, c are in the PSVI if and only if ..." As an aside, wouldn't it be useful to get at type information for an element that was not valid, if the processor had that information? This item was discussed in the meeting of 2004-03-25 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2004Mar/0133.html). Three points were identified as close to consensus: 1 We should eliminate any dependency on the absence of specific properties (i.e. important situations should be describable and distinguishable in terms of properties and their values, without appeal to the absence of particular properties), or if this proves unfeasible in particular cases we should say explicitly that a property is present "if and only if" certain conditions apply. Any remaining "if" (if any) would be a true conditional, not an equivalence. 2 Any specification of a class of processors (including ours) can require specific additional information not in the PSVI, though should note that interoperability is better if applications depend only on the properties present in the PSVI as we define it. 3 In our own specification of processor classes, we should be explicit that processors may provide additional information. (Or alternatively be explicit that they must not -- but the chair believes the WG consensus was to allow it.) This item was discussed in the meeting of 2004-04-01 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2004Apr/0003.html). Phase 1 agreement was reached on point 1 above. The other two points were moved to RQ-144.
On the telcon of 27 October 2006, the Working Group decided that this issue has now been resolved by the changes adopted for the definition of the PSVI.