It looks like we have a rough consensus that the proposed change is not backward's compatible for devices that validate schemas. Does anyone disagree at this point?
What does that mean for the question of fixing the schema via an erratum?
On Feb 20, 2012, at 4:39 AM, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé wrote:
> Hi Pete,
>
>>
>> I don't know anything about PIDF, but I know a bit about XML Schema and I
>> think there might be some mis-understanding of what <xs:any
>> namespace="##other"> does.
>>
>> If you have a schema fragment like:
>>
>> <xs:element name="activities">
>> <xs:complexType>
>> <xs:choice>
>> <xs:element name="breakfast"
>> type="empty" />
>> <xs:element name="dinner"
>> type="empty" />
>> <xs:element name="meal"
>> type="empty" />
>> <xs:any namespace="##other"
>> maxOccurs="unbounded" processContents="lax"/>
>> </xs:choice>
>> </xs:complexType>
>> </xs:element>
>>
>> Then the following would _violate_ the schema:
>>
>> <activities><lunch/></activities>
>>
>> The reason is that the <xs:any> element is specifying that the extension
>> must be in an-other namespace, not the namespace specified by the schema.
>>
>> Something like the following would be OK:
>>
>> <activities>
>> <xmlns:v2="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:rpid:v2" v2:lunch/>
>> </activities>
>>
>> So as I understand it, I believe this change could
>> break existing implementations that choose to use schema
>> validation. Whether, given the state of current implementation, that is a issue in practice is a matter for the group.
>>
>
> You are right, this was what was pointed out, that the change would make validating the current schema erroneous.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
> AG Projects
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Simple mailing list
> Simple@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
