- From: Xan Gregg <xan.gregg@jmp.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 09:50:06 -0400
- To: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson)
- Cc: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org, Kasimier Buchcik <kbuchcik@4commerce.de>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
On Jun 2, 2005, at 8:10 AM, Henry S. Thompson wrote: > [First, it has to be noted that the definition of Datatype Valid [1] > is broken -- it implies that if there's a *pattern* facet, the string > being checked need not be in the lexical space of the type!] I noticed that, too, but assumed the missing part of the validation must be covered somewhere else... > This actually interacts with an existing issue, regarding the > semantics of a type allowed as the type of e.g. an attribute as part > of a complex type derived by restriction from a base type with a > restricted union for that attribute (whew!) -- example: > > <xs:complexType name="base"> > <xs:attribute name="foo" type="fooSubType"/> > </xs:complexType> > > <xs:complexType name="restr"> > <xs:attribute name="foo" type="xs:token"/> > </xs:complexType> > > Currently this is a) allowed but b) means that the restricted type > allows _more_ than the base type, which is not supposed to happen. > > We should probably solve both these problems together (and the latter > issue suggests we'll go in Xan's direction, that is, we'll push the > facets down onto all the member types. . .) I think a reasonable solution for this problem would be to disallow such restrictions when the union type is not a "pure" facetless union. Anything that breaks as a result is already broken (relying on a broken feature). Such a solution would allow the pattern/union problem to be considered independently, possibly taking Kasimier's direction. xan
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2005 13:50:09 UTC