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 16778 - S4S has test attribute as optional on assertion/assert
Summary: S4S has test attribute as optional on assertion/assert
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Structures: XSD Part 1 (show other bugs)
Version: 1.1 only
Hardware: PC Windows NT
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: David Ezell
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: resolved
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2012-04-18 15:10 UTC by Priscilla Walmsley
Modified: 2015-05-23 18:57 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:

Attachments

Description Priscilla Walmsley 2012-04-18 15:10:39 UTC 
The XML Representation summary in 3.13.2 shows the test attribute in bold as if it is required. The DTD for Schemas is consistent with that. However, the Schema for Schemas has the test attribute as optional.  

It seems that the Schema for Schemas should be changed to make the test attribute required, since it is hard to imagine the purpose of an assertion without a test attribute.
Comment 1 David Ezell 2012-04-20 15:54:15 UTC 
WG agrees.
Comment 2 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2012-10-19 19:21:08 UTC 
Working on a repair for this today, I discover that the schema for Datatypes gives xs:assertion the same type as xs:assert, which seems plausible.  The DTD for Datatypes gives xs:assertion the same content model and attributes as other facets, which also seems plausible in isolation, but which contradicts the schema.  Since the DTD is non-normative, I think the obvious fix is to change the DTD.
Comment 3 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2012-10-20 20:27:11 UTC 
A diffed version of the spec showing a draft erratum for this issue is now on the server at

  https://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.errata-2012.html
  (member-accessible link)

The WG did not want to review this text, so I'm marking this bug as 'needs publication'.

Priscilla, if you could, please review the resolution of the issue and let us know whether you have any objections to it.  If we don't hear from you in the next two weeks or so, we'll assume you are happy with the changes.  (If you don't currently have member access, let us know so I can send you a copy of the diffed spec.)
Comment 4 Priscilla Walmsley 2012-10-21 14:55:47 UTC 
Looks good to me.  Thanks!
Comment 5 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2012-11-23 17:20:54 UTC 
Since PW has already assented to the change, I'm going ahead and closing this issue.
Comment 6 Priscilla Walmsley 2015-05-23 18:57:25 UTC 
Changing status from CLOSED back to RESOLVED because otherwise this bug does not appear in the search linked to from the Errata page at http://www.w3.org/XML/XMLSchema/v1.1/1e/errata.html