[Bug 5040] Hanlding of reference constraints on different kinds of elements


------- Comment #6 from sandygao@ca.ibm.com  2007-11-08 14:55 -------
> targetType/Element violated on unresolved refs unless a yet-be-be-defined
> attribute on that ref element says otherwise.

Why bother introducing a new one when we already have targetRequired, which is
there for this exact reason?

Your "reduced trust" arguments all assume that targetType/Element implies
targetRequired for *every* schema author. I don't think that's correct.
Different people may have different use cases and expect different results.
Because we choose to only have a binary outcome for these constraints
(satisfied or violated), we have to coerce the answer to one of them.

What's listed in comment #4 are reasons why we should coerce to "satisfied":
- Consistency
- Separation of concern
- Cover all cases

And the only argument for coercing it to violated I've seen is the belief that
"violated" is the *only* expected behavior for *everyone* in the world
*forever*. I can hardly believe this. I for one don't think that's the only

Received on Thursday, 8 November 2007 14:55:58 UTC