Re: [tag] Re: Checking Enumerative QNames for the TAML-defined simple values

[Stephen Green <stephen.green@documentengineeringservices.com>]

I'll look into it but my first reaction is that that will
break the whole idea of letting the W3C Schema
do the QName implementation work. A conforming
QName doesn't need a colon - only if the namespace
isn't a default namespace. Forcing a colon would
seem to me at first glance to break QName conformance
(according to the Namespaces in XML spec I would think
- a normative reference of the XML Schema Datatypes
spec). So in short, we have no need to tell a parser
what is a proper QName, it can do that itself. Doing
so would break conformance to QName since if
'a:b' is a proper QName then so is 'b'. Plus a NCName
is not a subset or superset of QName - they are different
branches of the XML Schema datatypes tree. I reckon
we are best just leaving QName as the base type, like
you originally said, I think.

Best regards
---
Stephen D Green




2009/11/15 Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>:
> Hmm, I don't think it is a default namespace problem.  I think it is because
> we are not requiring a colon in the QName.
>
> Suggestions:
>
> Under <xs:simpleType name="prescriontLevelBaseCode_type> I suggest that you
> use
>  <xs:restriction base="xs:NCName">
>
> Under <xs:simpleType name="codeExtension_type"> do what is needed to require
> a colon in the QName using a pattern.
>
>
>  - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: stephengreenubl@gmail.com [mailto:stephengreenubl@gmail.com] On Behalf
> Of Stephen Green
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tag/200911/msg00067.html
> Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 09:33
> To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> Cc: TAG TC List
> Subject: [tag] Re: Checking Enumerative QNames for the TAML-defined simple
> values
>
> Yep, it does work - see latest schema (TAML v1.0.0.3)
>
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/35196/testAssertionMarkupL
> anguage-1-0-0-3.xsd
>
> [ ... ]
>
> I note though that the following is also valid (without a prefix):
>
> <testAssertion xmlns="http://docs.oasis-open.org/tag/taml/200911";
>     xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance";
> xsi:schemaLocation="http://docs.oasis-open.org/tag/taml/200911
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/35196/testAssertionMarkupL
> anguage-1-0-0-3.xsd"
> id="illustation-1-0" schemaVersionId="1.0.0.3" time="08:39:23.312"
> date="2009-11-30">
>     <prescription level="deprecated"/>
> </testAssertion>
>
> because of XML Schema rules, so the namespace prefix is optional.
>
> I'm not expert enough to know for sure why this is but
> I guess it might be because the attribute itself does not need
> a namespace declaration; something to do with it automatically
> taking the default namespace?? Anyway, that it a bit too geeky
> for me to worry me. Just suffice that the namespace and prefix
> happen to be optional. The side effect of that is that folk have
> to be aware that the schema will not catch typos for the built-in
> values; i.e.
>
> [ ... ]
>
>