W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > August 2017

[Bug 30169] [XP31] Definition of pure union type allows unions with unions that have lists

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 19:57:52 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-30169-523-HiaqY8X7D5@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=30169

--- Comment #3 from Abel Braaksma <abel.braaksma@xs4all.nl> ---
Thanks, I didn't know the term was defined somewhere. Linking would be good,
since implementing XSD 1.1 is not mandatory. If we pick parts that need to be
understood or implemented regardless, we should probably say so.

I agree now that there is no bug (given the XSD 1.1 definition), and
suggestions for improvement would potentially cause(long) debates and hardly
satisfy requirements for inclusion in a possible erratum.

I think then, that the following would be either simpler, or shorter, and
satisfy the same constraints (just as an aside, I am not suggesting to rewrite
what already works):

   [Definition: A pure union type is an XML Schema union type that satisfies 
   the following constraints: (1) {variety} is union, (2) the {facets} property
   is empty, (3) each type in the transitive membership is an [atomic type] 
   or has {variety} union and is a [pure union type].

(I prefer inclusive definitions, mixing exclusions with inclusions I find
harder to grasp. But other readers mind find the recursiveness of the
definition problematic)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 29 August 2017 19:57:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 29 August 2017 19:57:55 UTC