Errata in restriction constraints wrt simple type defns? from Henry S. Thompson on 2001-11-07 (www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org from October to December 2001)

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 07 Nov 2001 09:52:40 +0000
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Cc: "xmlschema-dev (E-mail)" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>, Mark Feblowitz <mfeblowitz@frictionless.com>
Message-ID: <f5bn11yx5zr.fsf@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>

I don't actually see anything in the REC which blocks a simple type
definition of {variety} 'list' whose {item type definition} is not derived
from its {base type definition}'s {item type definition}.  Ditto for
{variety} 'union' and {member type definitions}.

There's no way to _notate_ such a definition given the XML
Representation constraints (I don't think), but it would be easy to
allow this.

I'm not sure whether this is two errata or something for 1.1., but the 
WG needs to discuss it.
-- 
  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 Wednesday, 7 November 2001 04:51:48 UTC