This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
In the Microsoft Element test set, test elemZ028c, the schema elemZ028c.xsd is described as valid but appears to violate UPA. Specifically, there is a conflict between elements a and b in: <xs:element type="xs:short" substitutionGroup="b" name="a"/> <xs:element type="xs:decimal" name="b"/> <xs:complexType name="base"> <xs:all> <xs:element ref="a"/> <xs:element ref="b"/> </xs:all> </xs:complexType>
Test elemZ028d suffers essentially the same problem, except that the compositor is xs:choice rather than xs:all. (Saxon actually doesn't report a UPA violation in this case, it reports a violation of Element Declarations Consistent, but that's purely an accident of the order of checking the rules). Schema elemZ028f.xsd, used in the following tests, shows the same problem: <test group="elemZ028f1" name="elemZ028f1"/> <test group="elemZ028f1" name="elemZ028f1.v"/> <test group="elemZ028f2" name="elemZ028f2"/> <test group="elemZ028f2" name="elemZ028f2.v"/> <test group="elemZ028f3" name="elemZ028f3"/> <test group="elemZ028f3" name="elemZ028f3.v"/>
Agreed that the expected outcome of this test should be invalid. We are following up with the WG to determine the process of updating the test suite.
Agreed, these schemas are invalid and should be marked as such in the metadata.