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

[Bug 7796] New: Misleading statement on change to unions

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 15:37:36 +0000
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-7796-703@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7796

           Summary: Misleading statement on change to unions
           Product: XML Schema
           Version: 1.1 only
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows XP
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Structures: XSD Part 1
        AssignedTo: David_E3@VERIFONE.com
        ReportedBy: kbraun@obj-sys.com
         QAContact: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
                CC: cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com


In the "changes since" appendix:

"An error in version 1.0 of this specification relating to the construction of
union types from other union types has been corrected. Unions may now appear as
members of other unions, and all restrictions of unions are correctly enforced,
even when xsi:type is used on an element to name a member of the union."

As I understand it, rather than having a correct enforcement of a restriction
on unions when xsi:type is used to name a member of the union, the
specification prevents this.  Assuming that the restriction was not pointless
(it has some facets), by 2.2.4.3 of 3.16.6.3 Type Derivation OK (Simple), none
of the member types can be said to validly derive from the restriction.  That
makes using xsi:type to specify a member type illegal.

It would also be helpful to point to where the specification was changed, or
what the implications of getting rid of flattening for {memberTypes} are (see
for example, bug 2233).  Was it only to prevent a memberType from being
considered as deriving from a restriction?


-- 
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 Friday, 2 October 2009 15:37:40 GMT

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