[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
"Michael Kay" <mike@saxonica.com> writes:
>>
>> You gloss is not accurate. The REC also says, wrt the semantics of
>> <import> [1],
>
> We had a discussion on this on xmlschema-dev in October and I thought the
> conclusion was that 3.15.3 was indeed flawed.
>
> If document A includes document B (or if C includes A and B), the components
> defined in A are never added to the "appropriate property of the schema
> which corresponds to the document B", and under 3.15.3 they are therefore
> not available to discharge QName references in B.
Sorry, I was confused by the context, which was Paul Spencer's
<import> example.
You're right, the impact of need for laziness has not always made it
to ever corner of the spec. that it needs to -- we're working on
getting composition right in XML Schema 1.1.
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
|
