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

RE: Question: validity of type overide with union type

From: Biron,Paul V <Paul.V.Biron@kp.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 09:15:36 -0700
Message-Id: <8904C60CACA7D51191BC00805FEAAF43D10C32@crdc-exch-7.crdc.kp.org>
To: "'dmh at Mile High XML'" <dmh@mhxml.com>
Cc: W3C XML Schema Comments list <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	dmh at Mile High XML [SMTP:dmh@mhxml.com]
> Sent:	Friday, June 14, 2002 8:17 AM
> To:	W3C XML Schema Comments list
> Subject:	Question: validity of type overide with   union type
> 
> I am unable to determine the intent and meaning of section
> 3.14.6 Constraints on Simple Type Definition Schema Components
> 
> My recall is that the intent of instance type overides is
> ONLY to apply stricter constraints on the data to be validated.
> yet, when working an example, the use in extensibility deriving
> alternative types became apparent.
> 
> Read one way,
> 	1) unitedColor is validly derived by union from rgbColor and the
> 		instance is valid.
> 
> 	If So, the text in parenthesis is not normative and confusing.
> 
>      or another way
> 
> 	2) unitedColor is NOT validly derived from rgbColor because
> 		it is not derived by restriction and therefore
> 		the instance is not valid.
> 
> 	If so, why is union in the list?
> 
The WG today discussed this comment.  The WG decided that there was no error or inconsistency in the REC and that the proper interpritation is that the instance is valid.  If you are not satisfied with this decision please let us know and provide further explanation of where you believe the problem to be.

pvb
Received on Thursday, 19 September 2002 13:01:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:13:01 GMT