W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > October to December 2005

[Bug 2306] Union of anySimpleType

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:45:42 +0000
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Cc:
Message-Id: <E1Ekp7e-0002z0-Ob@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2306


cmsmcq@w3.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|w3c-xml-schema-wg@w3.org    |cmsmcq@w3.org
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |NEW
           Keywords|unclassified                |needsAgreement
           Priority|P2                          |P1
            Version|unspecified                 |1.1 only




------- Additional Comments From cmsmcq@w3.org  2005-12-09 20:45 -------
The WG discussed this item on 9 December 2005 and agreed to treat
it as a requirement for 1.1 that we clarify whether anySimpleType
may or must not be used as a member of a union.

But 2574 raises the same question for version 1.0; it may be 
relevant to this issue because if 1.0 has a clear answer to
this question, some WG members will prefer not to change the
answer in 1.1.

There is a minor error in comment 1 -- it is clause 3.1 of 
Schema Component Constraint: Derivation Valid (Restriction, 
Simple), not Simple Type Definition Properties Correct, which
appears to rule out anySimpleType.

    3.1 The {member type definitions} must all have {variety} 
        of atomic or list.

(http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#cos-st-restricts)

This clause must change, however, in any case, since the
resolution of bug 2044 (retain union-level facets) requires 
that member types of variety union be allowed.  (See bug 2044 
comment 2, see also bug 2333, which is the Structures part of 
that issue.)
Received on Friday, 9 December 2005 20:45:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:13:10 GMT