- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 14 Feb 2002 11:31:29 +0000
- To: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com>
- Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com> writes: > As mentioned by Jeni and Noah in their answers, it would be nice to > get a definitive answer and you are probably the only one who can give > it :) ! > > > Untill we get such an answer, my position is that since the result of > this restriction relies on something (the order of elements in a > substitution group) which is undefined, restriction of substitution > groups are themselves undefined and should be avoided as source of > potential interroperability issues. <snip/> > >>Does that mean that we can restrict substitution groups? Yes. The REC is underspecified in the area of the order of the implicit choice represented by a substitution group head. I think an erratum is in order, as Martin Gudgin suggested, clarifying that in this case the order constraint doesn't apply. ht -- Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 06:40:01 UTC