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

At 5:34 PM -0700 050127, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote:
>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 have a vague feeling that somewhere we said you can't do both
"In" and "Ex" in the same step.  But I couldn't find it in a
quick search.

>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.

+1 !!!
-- 
Dave Peterson
SGMLWorks!

davep@iit.edu