W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > July to September 2010

[Bug 10662] Should IDREFS and ENTITIES be magic types?

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 17:55:55 +0000
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Oyq1T-0006NY-Oh@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10662


Sandy Gao <sandygao@ca.ibm.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |sandygao@ca.ibm.com




--- Comment #1 from Sandy Gao <sandygao@ca.ibm.com>  2010-09-23 17:55:55 ---
I agree to the direction suggested in the bug report. We made the changes for
ID/IDREF, but obviously missed ENTITY.

But the actual change will likely be more complex than suggested. We need to
cover cases where the type is a union or a list of union and ENTITY is a member
in the union. This is why we had to introduce complex words like those in
3.17.5 for ID/IDREF:

... one of the following:
1 the ·actual value· of a member of the ·eligible item set· whose [type
definition] or [member type definition] is or is ·derived· from ID or IDREF;
2 an item in the ·actual value· of a member of the ·eligible item set· whose
[type definition] or [member type definition] has {variety} list and either its
{item type definition} or the item's corresponding entry in [member type
definitions] is or is ·derived· from ID or IDREF.

-- 
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 Thursday, 23 September 2010 17:55:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 23 September 2010 17:55:59 GMT