- From: Ray Waldin <rwaldin@pacbell.net>
- Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 03:45:10 -0700
- To: <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
Hello,
I have some questions and a comment concerning SimpleTypes derived "by
restriction". To illustrate:
<simpleType name="firstType" base="decimal">
<minInclusive value="1"/>
<maxInclusive value="10"/>
</simpleType>
<simpleType name="secondType" base="firstType">
<minInclusive="2"/>
<maxInclusive="5"/>
</simpleType>
This seems perfectly acceptible as secondType is derived from firstType "by
restricting its value space", by specifying "more restrictive" values for
some facets. Here's a case that's not so obvious, using "less restrictive"
values:
<simpleType name="thirdType" base="firstType">
<minInclusive="0"/>
<maxInclusive="11"/>
</simpleType>
My questions:
Is this disallowed or just pointless? In other words, should a schema
processor regard this type derivation as an error, or simply produce a
thirdType which is no more restrictive than firstType?
What does "more restrictive" mean for the period and duration facets? Can
period and duration be re-specified in any meaningful way or is
re-specifying either of these values disallowed?
If a derived type re-specifies the pattern facet (as in the case of NCName
and Name), are schema processors expected to:
A) ensure that a derived type specifies a "more restrictive" pattern
than its base type, or
B) check all patterns in a type's derivation hierarchy when validating
an instance of that type?
My comment:
The datatypes spec should elaborate on the expected behavior of schema
processors when encountering derived types which re-specify values for each
facet.
-Ray
Received on Wednesday, 26 April 2000 06:42:26 UTC