- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 18:51:21 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3222 cmsmcq@w3.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |needsDrafting ------- Comment #1 from cmsmcq@w3.org 2007-10-14 18:51 ------- The WG discussed this issue at the ftf meetings of October 2007, first as a digression from bug 3245 and then in its own right. The primary arguments voiced against making changes here were (1) that since we worked hard to introduce the distinction between identity and equality in 1.1, it would feel dumb to eliminate it in effect by making nothing particular depend on identity and (2) that it would feel dumb to use anything other than identity for what we call *identity* constraints. Over the course of the discussion, the WG came to believe that these both amount merely to a fear of losing face, and that they have no technical force. It was proposed that we could still usefully distinguish identity from equality, for purposes of clarity (and as a touchstone for operations intended to be identity-preserving, such as storage and retrieval), and that we can have a note saying simply that the term "identity constraint" is a misnomer preserved for historical reasons. (After the fact, some WG members also pointed out that what identity constraints are concerned with is the identity of the element carrying the key, not the identity of the field values themselves. So it's misguided to think there is any real contradiction in using equality for identity constraints.) It was also pointed out that using equality rather than identity would reduce the impact of the incompatibilities incurred by our change from 1.0 to 1.1. This proved persuasive. In the end, we agreed to instruct the editors to prepare draft wording to make all tests use equality and to tell a rational story about identity. Rationale: soften the compatibility issues involved in our changes since 1.0. None were opposed, but we noted that a change to equality or identity of strings might undercut our consensus on this.
Received on Sunday, 14 October 2007 18:51:34 UTC