W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > July to September 2007

[Bug 2246] R-254: Clarify merge/union of facets

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:49:54 +0000
CC:
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1IXLfO-0000GO-MA@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2246


cmsmcq@w3.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED




------- Comment #7 from cmsmcq@w3.org  2007-09-17 18:49 -------
The XML Schema Working Group discussed this issue during its telcon of 
7 September 2007.  We noted that the wording of the relevant passage has
changed.  XSDL 1.0 and early drafts of 1.1 had

  {facets} The union of the set of Facets (2.4) components resolved to 
         by the facet [children] merged with {facets} from 
         {base type definition}, subject to the Facet Restriction 
         Valid constraints specified in Facets (2.4). 

This has been changed, in the course of work on 1.1, to read

  {facets} The appropriate case among the following:
      1. If the <restriction> alternative is chosen, then a set 
         of Constraining Facet components constituting a 
         restriction of the {facets} of the {base type definition} 
         with respect to a set of Constraining Facet components 
         corresponding to the appropriate element information items 
         among the [children] of <restriction> (i.e. those which 
         specify facets, if any), as defined in Schema Component 
         Constraint: Simple Type Restriction (Facets).
      2. If the <list> alternative is chosen, then a set with one 
         member, a whiteSpace facet with {value} = collapse and 
         {fixed} = true.
      3. otherwise the empty set 

where 'constituting a restriction' is a hyperlink to the definition
of that term in Structures.  Note that both the word 'union' and
the word 'merger' are now avoided.

Xan Gregg, the originator of the comment, will be notified by separate
email of this resolution and asked to confirm that this resolves the issue.
Received on Monday, 17 September 2007 18:50:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:50:06 UTC