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

Re: Restricting Wildcards

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 26 Feb 2003 22:44:51 +0000
To: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com>
Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>, <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f5b4r6qoe58.fsf@erasmus.inf.ed.ac.uk>

"Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com> writes:

> 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? 

The explicit wording rules it out.  That wording contradicts the
spirit of the REC, but I have no problem with implementors following
the REC literally in such circumstances.

My own validator doesn't flag this as an error, but that's because the
first time around I didn't implement the restrictions on restrictions
at all, and the second time around I implemented the extensional
subset approach (which is not conformant, but XSV is in part the
Editor's testbench).

When there's a contradiction in the REC, I expect people to try to
guess what was meant, and go that way.  That's not really the case
here, as we've made clear in the past that we _knew_ the explicit
rules didn't exactly realize our subset intentions.  On the other
hand, the parallel with substitution groups is pretty clear, so I
certainly wouldn't argue that an implementation that _doesn't_ flag
this one is broken.

This problem will go away in 1.1, I hope -- not sure whether there
will be an erratum before then. . .

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 17:44:54 GMT

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