Hello I'm wondering whether the following is a bug in the XML Schema Recommendation: At http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#rcase-NameAndTypeOK <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/> it is stated that "3.2.3 R's declaration's {identity-constraint definitions} <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/> is a subset of B's declaration's {identity-constraint definitions} <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/> , if any." To my opinion this would mean, that there are fewer constraints on R than on B - which is probably not intended. Look at the following two element declarations: (1) <xs:element name="e"> <xsd:complexType> <xsd:sequence> <xsd:element name="uid" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> </xsd:sequence> </xsd:complexType> </xs:element> (2) <xs:element name="e"> <xsd:complexType> <xsd:sequence> <xsd:element name="uid" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> </xsd:sequence> </xsd:complexType> <xsd:unique name="uid"> <xsd:selector xpath="uid"/> <xsd:field xpath="."/> </xsd:unique> </xs:element> Obviously, (1)'s identity constraints are a subset of (2)'s. When looking at these I end up with the conclusion that (2) is a valid restriction of (1) rather than vice versa. Would you agree on this? Best regards Uli PostReceived on Tuesday, 7 December 2004 18:00:31 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 October 2007 06:13:35 GMT