W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > February 2003

RE: Restricting Wildcards

From: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 09:06:17 -0800
Message-ID: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F804B54D55@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>, <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>

So you are saying there isn't any explicit wording in the spec that
makes it valid but our implementers should have assumed that the
intention of the spec was for it to be valid? 

-- 
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM 
Drive defensively--buy a tank.                                 

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights. 

>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henry S. Thompson [mailto:ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 1:14 AM
> To: Dare Obasanjo
> Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org; www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
> 
> "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com> writes:
> 
> > Is the following restriction valid: 
> > 
> > BASE: 
> > <xs:sequence minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"> 
> >   <xs:any namespace="##any" processContents="skip" minOccurs="1" 
> > maxOccurs="unbounded"/> </xs:sequence>
> > 
> > 
> > DERIVED: 
> >      <xs:sequence minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"> 
> >            <xs:element name="A" minOccurs="1" 
> maxOccurs="unbounded" /> 
> >            <xs:element name="B" minOccurs="1" 
> maxOccurs="unbounded" /> 
> >      </xs:sequence>
> > 
> > 2 There is a complete *order-preserving* functional mapping 
> from the particles in the {particles} of R to the particles 
> in the {particles} of B such that all of the following must be true: 
> 
> > [Definition:]  A complete functional mapping is 
> order-preserving if each particle r in the domain R maps to a 
> particle b in the range B which follows (not necessarily 
> immediately) the particle in the range B mapped to by the 
> predecessor of r, if any, where "predecessor" and "follows" 
> are defined with respect to the order of the lists which 
> constitute R and B. " 
> 
> Yup, that looks like a bug to me.  A similar problem would 
> arise with substitution groups, which are also an implicit 
> disjunction, were it not for the explicit statement that they 
> are treated _as_ a disjunction for checking restriction.  We 
> should have said something similar for wildcards.
> 
> I say 'bug' because I think it's clear the _intention_ was 
> that this should be valid -- certainly the set of valid 
> instances of the 'derived' type def. is a (proper) subset of 
> the set of valid instances of the base type def.
> 
> ht
> --
>   Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, 
> University of Edinburgh
>                       Half-time member of W3C Team
>      2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 
> 131 650-4440
> 	    Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
> 		     URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/  [mail 
> really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is 
> forged spam]
> 
Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2003 12:06:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:36 GMT