- From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 09:40:16 -0600
- To: Kevin Braun <kbraun@obj-sys.com>
- Cc: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
On 5 Oct 2009, at 08:19 , Kevin Braun wrote:
> I understand your point about trying to reference all of the
> changes. Very true.
>
> Regarding eliminating the "flattening" of {member type definitions}
> (so as to now include member unions rather than recursively remove
> the unions by replacing with their members), my question (of the
> text) is what is the significance of that change? Or, where does
> the specification make use of this change? I finally came to figure
> out that, combined with 2.2.4.3 of 3.16.6.3 Type Derivation OK
> (Simple), this has an implication for type substitution. I think it
> would be helpful if the description of the change mentioned that.
> If there are other significant implications (I gather that is not
> the case), it would be helpful to mention them.
>
> Perhaps that goes beyond the purpose of listing the changes, but it
> would be helpful to implementors. I spent some time trying to
> figure out how the facets for a union restriction were being
> correctly enforced even when xsi:type was used to specify a member
> type, figuring there must be some new complicated rule somewhere
> that did that. When I made the above discovery, I realized the
> truth of the matter. A pointer to 3.16.6.3 and a slightly better
> explanation (such as what you suggested) would have been more
> helpful to me.
>
> I hope that helps.
Thank you; it does. I will see if I can come up with wording that
is more helpful to the reader.
--
****************************************************************
* C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, Black Mesa Technologies LLC
* http://www.blackmesatech.com
* http://cmsmcq.com/mib
* http://balisage.net
****************************************************************
Received on Monday, 5 October 2009 15:40:47 UTC