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

[Bug 6167] Attribute Wildcard Intersection

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 17:02:59 +0000
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Kry9j-0005Jb-OQ@farnsworth.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6167





--- Comment #2 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>  2008-10-20 17:02:59 ---
Further to comment #1. I'm not sure I got that right. Rules 1 and 2 already
give you {A, C} in my example. they don't give you B, because B is not allowed
by either wildcard. So rules 1, 2, 3 between them are more-or-less constructing
the union, which is the effect I wanted. Moreover rule 3 isn't confined to
QName members of {disallowedNames} - it brings in "defined" and
"definedSibling" where appropriate. Though that fits oddly with rule 4.

I can't really see why the whole set of 4 rules can't be replaced by "the union
of O1.{disallowedName} and O2.{disallowedNames} retaining only those QNames
whose URI is allowed by both O1 and O2 as defined in Wildcard allows Namespace
Name (3.10.4.3)" - which seems to me a lot clearer.

And frankly, I don't see the need for the "The {disallowed names} property of O
is consistent with O being the wildcard intersection of O1 and O2" style either
- it just seems a longwinded way of saying "O.{disallowedQNames} is the union
of O1.{disallowedName} and O2.{disallowedNames}, retaining only those QNames
whose URI is allowed by both O1 and O2 as defined in Wildcard allows Namespace
Name (3.10.4.3)"


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 20 October 2008 17:03:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:13:16 GMT