- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:01:20 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7749 Summary: [XPath 2.0] derives-from() and union types Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT Version: Recommendation Platform: PC OS/Version: Windows NT Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: XPath AssignedTo: jonathan.robie@redhat.com ReportedBy: mike@saxonica.com QAContact: public-qt-comments@w3.org We allow an ItemType in a SequenceType to take the form element(N, U) or attribute(N, U) where U is a union type defined in the schema. But under the rules for the derives-from() function, no element or attribute will ever match such a sequence type, because the type annotation of the element or attribute will never be a union type (it will always be one of its member types), and derives-from() requires derivation by restriction or extension: a member type of a union is not derived by restriction or extension from the union type. This also affects schema-element(N) or schema-attribute(N) if the element or attribute declaration for N has a declared type that is a union type. In 2.5.4, the first rule "1. AT is a schema type found in the in-scope schema definitions, and is the same as ET or is derived by restriction or extension from ET" should be changed to "1. AT is validly derived from ET given the empty set [of blocked derivation methods] as defined in [XSD 1.0] by Type Derivation OK (Complex) (§3.4.6) or Type Derivation OK (Simple) (§3.14.6), as appropriate." This also affects the rule numbered 1 in the second list. Note that the schema rules for Type Derivation OK allow transitive derivation, thus obviating the need for our rule 3. Complicating matters, there is a bug in XSD 1.0 whereby the rules for simple type substitutability do not correctly take account of a union type that is derived by restriction from another union. This bug is fixed in XSD 1.1. -- 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 Tuesday, 29 September 2009 09:01:30 UTC