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 4159 - Reflect legacy types better in infoset / infoset fixups
Summary: Reflect legacy types better in infoset / infoset fixups
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Structures: XSD Part 1 (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Macintosh All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w...
Whiteboard:
Keywords: resolved
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2007-01-08 22:16 UTC by C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Modified: 2007-04-13 16:48 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2007-01-08 22:16:54 UTC
This issue was raised by Jonathan Marsh in email of January 2002
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-wg/2002Jan/0090.html

In that mail, his third point is:

     Looking at Schema from the point of view of retaining infoset
     consistency, I then wonder why Schema provides "legacy" datatypes
     such as xs:ID, which are not reflected in the infoset in a manner
     that recognizes the legacy behavior.  This is apparent in the
     unfortunate fact that XPointer cannot recognize Schema IDs,
     because it is based on the Infoset.  To provide meaningful legacy
     support, Schema would have to reflect xs:ID in the [attribute
     type] and [references] properties.  There are likely similar
     issues with the other legacy datatypes (e.g.  NOTATION).

For the first issue raised by Jonathan Marsh's email, see bug 2102
(for 1.0) and 2105 (for 1.1); for the second, see bug 2103 (for 1.0)
and bug 2748 (this issue, for 1.1).
Comment 1 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2007-03-28 19:28:53 UTC
The Working Group discussed this during our face to face meeting on 28
March and instructed the editors to prepare wording addressing this issue
for consideration by the working group.
Comment 2 Sandy Gao 2007-04-13 16:48:25 UTC
The Working Group discussed a wording proposal for this issue [1] and rejected most of the changes in it, because it was felt that the cost/benefit ratio is too high. The only changes that's adopted by the WG is to provide a value for the [owner element] property when an attribute is defaulted.

[1] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.b4159.200704.html (member-only)