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

issue 2246 R-254: Clarify merge/union of facets

From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:57:43 -0600
Message-Id: <630A3F80-FBF0-4D39-81F6-535EA3C5FB58@acm.org>
Cc: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
To: Xan Gregg <xan.gregg@jmp.com>


A long time after you first raised it, the XML Schema Working Group
spent some time on our telcon the other week discussing the issue
you first raised in April 2004 at
which in turn became issue R-254 in the issue tracking system we used
at that time, and later issue 2246 in W3C's public instance of Bugzilla:

   R-254: Clarify merge/union of facets

The result of the WG discussion is reflected in comment #7,
which I reproduce below.

   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  
   email of this resolution and asked to confirm that this resolves  
the issue.

This mail is to notify you formally of the resolution of the
issue and to ask you to confirm that the change resolves the issue
to your satisfaction (or alternatively to let us know that it
does not).  You can do this by responding to this email one way
or the other.

If we don't hear from you in three weeks, we will assume that
you are happy with the change.


--Michael Sperberg-McQueen
   on behalf of the W3C XML Schema Working Group
Received on Monday, 17 September 2007 18:57:49 UTC

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