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

[Bug 11103] Note in section 2.4.1 (Special datatypes as members of a union)

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 19:13:46 +0000
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1P8e6c-0004Lw-3r@jessica.w3.org>

--- Comment #1 from C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> 2010-10-20 19:13:44 UTC ---
I believe that the sentence from quoted in the description ("Any number
... of ordinary or primitive datatypes can participate in a union type") was
taken by the WG and editors (together, perhaps I should say, with the absence
of any corresponding statement allowing special datatypes to be members of
unions) as providing the normative statement in question.

It does seem odd to me that there is no constraint on components to enforce the
rule.  It would probably be helpful either to add a Constraint on Schema saying
that if {variety } = union, then {member type definitions} should be a list of
ordinary or primitive type definitions, or else to rephrase the description of
{member type definitions} in the tableau, specifying that the members are
primitive or ordinary.

In the case of lists, I think the property identified in a note follows from
the definition of list datatypes in the bullet item to which the note is
attached and (also? independently? or jointly?  not sure, my formal logic is
feeling a bit fuzzy today) from the definition of item type in section
and the sentence following that definition.  But here, too, I think an explicit
constraint on schemas and/or rephrasing of the component tableau might be

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, 20 October 2010 19:13:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:50:10 UTC