http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2233 cmsmcq@w3.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Keywords|unclassified |resolved Resolution| |FIXED Version|unspecified |1.1 only ------- Comment #2 from cmsmcq@w3.org 2006-09-23 22:46 ------- The problem identified here is the same as the one mentioned in bug 2333; it has been addressed in XML Schema 1.1 by eliminating the practice of 'flattening' union, thus ensuring that when a union is restricted, its union-level facets are not lost when it is named as a member of another union. The same change addresses the problem identified here, in which the union-level facets are lost when restriction is checked. Under the new rules, the restriction of ct-base by ct-deriv is not legal, since the type assigned to element e in ct-deriv is not a restriction of the type assigned to that element in ct-base. The original comment still applies to XML Schema 1.0, and I have made a separate issue for 1.0 (bug 3763). With the change to the treatment of unions, which is reflected in the current published working draft, I believe this issue has been resolved, so I am changing its status to RESOLVED / FIXED.Received on Saturday, 23 September 2006 22:46:57 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:13:11 GMT