W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > January to March 2008

[Bug 5062] what facets apply to union?

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2008 23:32:15 +0000
CC:
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1JYV03-0006KI-Db@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5062





------- Comment #6 from mike@saxonica.com  2008-03-09 23:32 -------
I'm sorry if I'm being dense here, or if I have failed to recall the WG
discussion that led us here.

The effect of this proposal seems to be that union(decimal, string) is an
ordered type but all the operations that normally apply to ordered types are
disallowed. So why exactly are we saying that it is ordered? The stated
justification, that making it unordered would be an "unmotivated and ad-hoc
change" seems rather weak - if no ordering operations are available, it seems
quite unreasonable to describe the type as ordered.

The justification that facets such as minInclusive etc are disallowed "for
compatibility with version 1.0" also seems curious. I can't see how allowing
such facets would introduce an incompatibility. Using "for compatibility" as a
justification generally means "we got it wrong last time and we're now stuck
with it" - this doesn't seem to apply here. If we choose to give a reason for
our decisions (we don't have to) then the reason had better be defensible.
Received on Sunday, 9 March 2008 23:32:23 GMT

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