W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > October to December 2004

Re: Bug in "Particle Valid (Restriction)"

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 16:13:55 -0500
To: <Ulrich.Post@softwareag.com>
Cc: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF412F65B3.5C39C897-ON85256F63.0074E919@lotus.com>

This is a known XML schema issue, scheduled for fixing in a future 
release.  See [1] (may be accessible only to W3C members, not sure). 
Thanks for pointing it out though, as we'd rather be sure that we find all 
the bugs. 



Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142

Sent by: www-xml-schema-comments-request@w3.org
12/07/2004 12:59 PM

        To:     <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        Bug in "Particle Valid (Restriction)"

I'm wondering whether the following is a bug in the XML Schema 
At http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#rcase-NameAndTypeOK it is stated that 
     "3.2.3 R's declaration's {identity-constraint definitions} is a subset of B's declaration's 
               {identity-constraint definitions}, 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: 
    <xs:element name="e"> 
          <xsd:element name="uid" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> 
    <xs:element name="e"> 
          <xsd:element name="uid" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> 
      <xsd:unique name="uid"> 
        <xsd:selector xpath="uid"/> 
        <xsd:field xpath="."/> 
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 Post 
Received on Tuesday, 7 December 2004 21:32:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:50:02 UTC