Re: [xml-dev] Substitution Groups

"Michael Kay" <> 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: 
                   URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]