W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > October to December 2000

RE: LC-93 disjoint datatypes

From: Vun Kannon, David <dvunkannon@kpmg.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:13:29 -0400
Message-Id: <1BFA1EA02439D21193A20008C7A4B20F04F65A2A@USMNYEXC04>
To: "'C. M. Sperberg-McQueen'" <cmsmcq@acm.org>
Cc: W3C XML Schema Comments list <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
Thank you. At first blush, the new proposal does satisfy my basic request.
I'm unsure how the union of types across different schemas will look, but I
have to admit to not having read the new spec carefully. I'm envisioning a
situation in which one schema defines 
, a second schema defines 
colorsB= first:colorsA union {pink,blue}
eventually, an instance of a third schema containing
attribute name="currentColor" type="schema2:colorsB"
<trafficLight currentColor="schema2:pink"/>
but if the color was green what is the attribute value? schema1:green or

Have I created a union with the type or the set of values the type
aggregates? I hope that question makes sense.
David vun Kannon

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen [mailto:cmsmcq@acm.org]
> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 10:01 PM
> To: Vun Kannon, David
> Cc: W3C XML Schema Comments list
> Subject: LC-93 disjoint datatypes
> Dear Mr. Van Kunnon:
> The W3C XML Schema Working Group has spent the last several months
> working through the comments received from the public on the last-call
> draft of the XML Schema specification.  We thank you for the comments
> you made on our specification during our last-call comment period, and
> want to make sure you know that all comments received during the
> last-call comment period have been recorded in our last-call issues
> list (http://www.w3.org/2000/05/12-xmlschema-lcissues).
> Among other issues, you raised the point registered as issue LC93,
> which suggests that XML Schema be modified to make it possible to
> build a simple datatype out of other simple datatypes with disjoint
> lexical spaces.
> Ashok Malhotra replied in May that this is not possible (and indeed
> it was not possible at that time).
> More recently, however, after discussion of the issue you raised, in
> conjunction with related issues raised by others, the WG agreed to
> adopt a proposal to allow simple types to be constructed as the union
> of other simple types.  There is no requirement that the lexical
> spaces be disjoint: the value passed is tried against each member type
> in turn, and the first one it matches is the one which applies.  (This
> means that A union B will not behave in exactly the same way as B
> union A, so schema authors are urged to exercise caution.)  This means
> that it is possible to create union types for (for example) (a)
> anything from this enumeration of strings, or (b) any string.  The
> xsi:type attribute may be used in the instance as a discriminator to
> force the value to be associated with a particular member type.
> It would be helpful to us to know whether you are satisfied with the
> decision taken by the WG on this issue, or wish your dissent from the
> WG's decision to be recorded for consideration by the Director of
> the W3C.
> with best regards,
> -C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
>   World Wide Web Consortium
>   Co-chair, W3C XML Schema WG
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else
is unauthorized. 

If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution
or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited
and may be unlawful. When addressed to our clients any opinions or advice
contained in this email are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in
the governing KPMG client engagement letter.         
Received on Tuesday, 10 October 2000 12:13:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:53 UTC