W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > January to March 2009

[Bug 6545] Using Assertions to restrict complex types

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:49:44 +0000
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1LWszg-0006n7-A0@wiggum.w3.org>


Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |ht@inf.ed.ac.uk

--- Comment #1 from Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>  2009-02-10 13:49:43 ---
I think a version of Plan G makes a lot of sense, and Plan G is the only one I
see that we could add w/o going back to Last Call yet again.  My preferred
version would be to say that

 a) By default, a named model group is defined in conjunction with every
    non-empty CTD;

 b) The name of that group is xsd_dgd_[the name of the CTD] in the target
    namespace of the CTD;

 c) <xs:group/> is allowed if you are eventually inside an <xs:restriction>...
    with the result having as it were ref=xsd_dgd_

Otherwise we couldn't go through the named-group reference route, which is much
simpler than actually chasing around in component space.  I realise this raises
the in-principle possibility of name conflict.  We could fix that by including
a non NCName character such as space or initial #, but that would lose the real
added value of allowing other, explicit, reference to these CTD-content-based
named groups.

What about inheritance of assertions themselves?

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 Tuesday, 10 February 2009 13:49:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:50:09 UTC