- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2008 18:29:57 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5940 --- Comment #7 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> 2008-11-01 18:29:57 --- >The work of dynamic consistency checking of type assignments with the types which would be assigned to potential siblings is done in clause 5 of the validation rule Element Locally Valid (Complex Type). Thanks. I've now sussed out how that works. Mind-blowing, I need a very strong drink to recover. That leaves the question: is there an equivalent rule in XSD 1.0 that would make the content <X>3<X><X>2008-11-01</X> invalid against this content model, or have we introduced an incompatibility? (And the secondary question, if it was allowed in 1.0, and no-one complained, then who benefits from the introduction of this amazingly complex machinery designed to make it invalid in 1.1?) -- 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 Saturday, 1 November 2008 18:30:08 UTC