W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > April to June 2011

[Bug 12626] Definition of "member types" of a union

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 00:34:09 +0000
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1QSIL3-0005fd-0q@jessica.w3.org>

C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
           Keywords|needsDrafting               |needsReview

--- Comment #2 from C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> 2011-06-03 00:34:08 UTC ---
Proposal:  after the definition of 'member types' add the following note:

  NOTE:  when datatypes are represented using XSD schema components, 
  as described in 4 Datatype copmonents, the member types of a union 
  are those simple type definitions given in the {member type definitions} 

MK asks:

  This doesn't say what the member types of a union derived by restriction from
  another union are. It also begs the question of what the "definition" is: is
  this referring to schema documents or schema components?

I take this passage (and indeed most of the Datatypes spec) to be talking
neither about schema documents nor about schema components, but about datatypes
more generally.  A union has member types, and a transitive membership, whether
it is being used in an XSD schema (which has schema components and usually has
schema documents) or in a Relax NG schema (which does not have schema
components as defined by XSD) or in some other context.

MK's point about consistency is a good one, but I am reluctant to eliminate the
term 'member type' and even more reluctant to define it in terms of the {member
type definitions} property (which would better be defined in terms of member
types).  I think it is here probably more important to maintain consistency
with and within the rest of Datatypes, which is making an effort (not, to be
sure, always equally successful) to define a conceptual apparatus for simple
types which is usable independently of XSD part 1.  

But perhaps I'm just rationalizing my deep desire not to make a change that
would involve touching a dozen passages of the document.  Adding this simple
note is quick and easy; making the change MK suggests is tedious, error-prone,
and slow.  Quick is good. Easy is good.

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, 3 June 2011 00:34:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:50:11 UTC