- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:14:05 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- Cc:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1916
Summary: EP-16: lexical mappings are relations, not necessarily
functions
Product: XML Schema
Version: 1.1
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: XSD Part 2: Datatypes
AssignedTo: cmsmcq@w3.org
ReportedBy: cmsmcq@w3.org
QAContact: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
At the ftf of May 2005 the WG recognized the need to ensure that all
parts of the Datatypes spec provide a consistent account of the nature
of lexical mappings and the value and lexical spaces.
The invariants we wish to express are:
For all types, the lexical space is the domain of the lexical
mapping, and the value space its domain. There are no ineffable
values, there are no meaningless lexical forms.
For all primitive types and all types derived from them by
restriction or constructed from them by list, the lexical
mapping is a function: each lexical form uniquely determines
a value.
For the special types, however, and for union types, the
lexical mapping is not (necessarily) a function. When these
are used as the types of elements, xsi:type can used
to specify which mapping to use.
(It is also true that the context in which our type system
is used may provide other mechanisms for addressing this
problem. The untypedAtomic mechanism of QT is one such;
we should write nothing that appears to conflict with the
existence of such a mechanism.)
The descriptions of the special types, of lexical mappings in
general, and of unions should be reviewed and if necessary
revised to ensure that the invariants identified above are
stated clearly and that nothing is stated which contradicts
them.
At the ftf in August 2005 the WG asked the editors to provide
wording for this topic to be considered at our meeting of
2 September 2005.
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2005 18:14:12 UTC