issue regarding upper and lower bounds (another problem with paternalism)

The definition of maxInclusive defines a constraint
on schemas that says:  


Schema Component Constraint: maxInclusive valid restriction

It is an error if any of the following conditions is true:

  1 maxInclusive is among the members of {facets} of {base type
    definition} and {value} is greater than the {value} of that
    maxInclusive.

  2 maxExclusive is among the members of {facets} of {base type
    definition} and {value} is greater than or equal to the
    {value} of that maxExclusive.

  3 minInclusive is among the members of {facets} of {base type
    definition} and {value} is less than the {value} of that
    minInclusive.

  4 minExclusive is among the members of {facets} of {base type
    definition} and {value} is less than or equal to the {value}
    of that minExclusive.

This suggests that incompatible or nonsensical values for 
upper and lower bounds are illegal, but only if imposed in
different steps.  Does that mean that it's legal to write
the following?

 <xsd:simpleType>	
  <xsd:restriction base="xsd:integer">
   <xsd:maxInclusive value="10"/>
   <xsd:maxExclusive value="10"/>
  </xsd:restriction>
 </xsd:simpleType>

Or have I missed some rule elsewhere?

I take this as another instantiation of the principle that
a paternalist's work is never done, and that life will be
simpler and we will have more confidence in the correctness
of our spec if we abandon paternalism.

-CMSMcQ