[Bug 4602] NOTATION and enumeration

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4602





--- Comment #13 from Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>  2009-04-15 23:02:08 ---
Michael Sperberg-McQueen writes:

> I think the concern expressed by NM in comment 10
> is well placed,

Thank you.

> but the wording in comment 9 does
> in fact go a little bit out of its way to avoid
> saying or implying that types can be derived from
> NOTATION only by using XSD.  Am I missing
> something in the wording, or missing another
> possible reading of it?

No, I think I was missing something.  Sometimes I think I'm developing a bit of
dyslexia.  Where you wrote:

> The exception is that in the derivation of a new
> type the literals used to enumerate the allowed
> values may be (and in the context of [XSD 1.1 Part
> 1: Structures] MUST be) validated directly against
> NOTATION; this amounts to verifying that the value
> is a QName and that the QName is the name of a
> NOTATION declared in the current schema.

I for some reason read:

> The exception is that in the XSD structures
> derivation of a new type the literals used to
> enumerate the allowed values may be


You would have thought the parenthetical would have saved me from this
misinterpretation, but apparently not.  I do think there might be some
borderline ambiguity in the first sentence, since the only place we've seen any
detail on "derivation of new types" is in structures.  Still, I agree it's both
strictly correct and OK in practice as it stands.  At this point, we have more
important fish to fry.  Sorry for the confusion.


-- 
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 Wednesday, 15 April 2009 23:02:17 UTC