- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 23:32:07 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11336
Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |gandhi.mukul@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@gmail.com> 2010-11-17 23:32:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
I think this bug report is related to the bug
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11335 you've opened.
> We don't allow a user-defined type to be derived by restriction from
> xs:anyAtomicType.
In the bug 11335 my opinion is to retain the qualifier MAY for this feature. So
as per my understanding we must not say for e.g "we *don't* allow" (since MAY
is specifying a lax implementation behavior).
> But we do allow a user-defined type to be derived by restriction from
> union(xs:anyAtomicType, xs:integer), or even from union(xs:anyAtomicType) (a
> singleton union), which appears to have exactly the same semantics.
>
> This seems inconsistent...
If we retain MAY for the point I've mentioned above, then the above examples
shall be allowable as well.
> I cannot see any reason for allowing xs:anyAtomicType (or xs:anySimpleType) to
> appear as a member type of a union or as an item type of a list.
Again an MAY qualifier allows implementers to have a lax implementation (and
ideally be implementation defined) in this regard.
Summarizing: I don't see these issues as significant design hole in the spec at
the moment, so I'm in favor of keeping the status-quo.
But I'll be fine with the eventual decision of the WG about this bug report and
the bug 11335.
Thanks.
--
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, 17 November 2010 23:32:09 UTC