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 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:13:17 GMT