Re: inconsistency in PR vis. simpleType final attribute

neilg@ca.ibm.com writes:

> Hello all,
> 
> I notice that in section 3.14.1 of the PR draft of the Structures spec, we
> have:
> 
>      {final}
>      A subset of {extension, list, restriction, union}.
> 
> and later on:
> 
> A simple type definition with an empty specification for {final} can be
> used as the {base type definition}
> for other types derived by either of extension or restriction, or as the
> {item type definition} in the definition of a list, or in the {member type
> definitions} of a union; the explicit values extension, restriction, list
> and union prevent further derivations by extension (to yield a complex
> type) and restriction (to yield a simple type) and use in constructing
> lists and unions respectively.
> 
> Although being able to set final to "extension" for simpleTypes might make
> sense, this possibility doesn't seem to be permitted by section 3.14.2 of
> this spec nor anywhere that I could find in the  PR draft of the Datatype
> spec.  Is it the group's intention to permit final="extension" on
> simpleTypes?

The editors made a late set of fixes to our implementation of the WG's 
decision to allow 'final' on simple types, and did not succeed in
perfectly co-ordinating those fixes.  The WG will have to decide how
to resolve the issue you raise.

ht
-- 
  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
          W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team
     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
	    Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
		     URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/

Received on Friday, 23 March 2001 05:06:16 UTC