W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > April to June 2002

Re: Schema for schemas bugs?

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 23 Apr 2002 13:44:15 +0100
To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Cc: "Aung Aung" <aaung@microsoft.com>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5bpu0qbn4w.fsf@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> writes:

> Henry wrote:
> > Sorry for the confusion -- you're right that the inclusion in the
> > sForS of the 'information only' definitions of the builtin primitive
> > datatypes is problematic. I would note in our defense that the quote
> > above says you can't have anySimpleType as the {base type def} of
> > and _user-defined_ types, but I agree that taken as a user schema
> > doc., the published sForS violates this constraint.
> 
> Could you point out where this constraint is? The only constraint that
> I could find was in the non-normative section 3.14.1 of the Structures
> Rec
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#Simple_Type_Definition_details).
> I can't find a similar restriction in the normative Datatypes Rec...?

You're right, it's non-normative.  None-the-less, the point that
actually trying to build a typedef by restricting aST is incoherent is 
clearly true, so processors would be well-advised to flag any attempt
to do so as an error.

Erratum required, I believe.

ht
-- 
  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
          W3C Fellow 1999--2002, 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/
 [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2002 08:44:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:13:00 GMT