W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: substitutionGroup and anyType

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 13 Feb 2003 09:55:17 +0000
To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Cc: "Hugh Wallis" <hugh_wallis@hyperion.com>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5bk7g4ec8q.fsf@erasmus.inf.ed.ac.uk>

Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> writes:

> Hi Hugh,
> > Hmm - but at
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#Type_Definition_Summary it says:
> >
> > [Definition:] Except for a distinguished ·ur-type definition·, every
> > ·type definition· is, by construction, either a ·restriction· or an
> > ·extension· of some other type definition. The graph of these
> > relationships forms a tree known as the Type Definition Hierarchy.
> Yes. That's what I meant when I said that if you went by the "spirit"
> of the rules, you'd say that it was legal to substitute xs:anyType
> with xs:string.


> and this falls down because none of the conditions from 2.2 are met:
> xs:string is an atomic type whose base type definition is the simple
> ur-type definition.
> I'd view this as a bug in the spec, personally.

Sigh, I thought we'd fixed this in the forthcoming errata, but this
case has been missed.  I'll see what we can do at the last minute.

  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                      Half-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 Thursday, 13 February 2003 04:55:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:50:00 UTC