Re: Schema for schemas bugs?

Jeni Tennison <> writes:

> Henry wrote:
> > Sorry for the confusion -- you're right that the inclusion in the
> > sForS of the 'information only' definitions of the builtin primitive
> > datatypes is problematic. I would note in our defense that the quote
> > above says you can't have anySimpleType as the {base type def} of
> > and _user-defined_ types, but I agree that taken as a user schema
> > doc., the published sForS violates this constraint.
> Could you point out where this constraint is? The only constraint that
> I could find was in the non-normative section 3.14.1 of the Structures
> Rec
> (
> I can't find a similar restriction in the normative Datatypes Rec...?

You're right, it's non-normative.  None-the-less, the point that
actually trying to build a typedef by restricting aST is incoherent is 
clearly true, so processors would be well-advised to flag any attempt
to do so as an error.

Erratum required, I believe.

  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
          W3C Fellow 1999--2002, part-time member of W3C Team
     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
	    Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail:
 [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]

Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2002 08:44:37 UTC