- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 03:23:36 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4602
--- Comment #5 from Dave Peterson <davep@iit.edu> 2009-04-13 03:23:36 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Would it solve this problem satisfactorily if (a) NOTATION were made
> abstract and (b) the text cited in the original description of the
> problem were replaced with text pointing out that since NOTATION
> is abstract it cannot be used to validate an item in an instance document?
I'm not prepared to say whether this would solve the problem, but it's
certainly not an editorial change. Currently simple type definitions do not
appear to have an {abstract} property, Adding a new property could hardly be
editorial--and would be a change to Part 1 (Structures). Pity.
Perhaps the restriction could be expressed in terms like "must be treated as
though NOTATION were abstract in the sense of [reference to Structures]".
We've tried to avoid where possible making non-XSD users of Datatypes think too
much about the details of Structures, but mayhap we have to here? At the very
least, the concept of abstract datatype could perhaps be the guide for the way
the restriction is described.
--
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, 13 April 2009 03:23:46 UTC