- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 25 Nov 2002 15:18:28 +0000
- To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org, "Jeff Greif" <jgreif@alumni.princeton.edu>, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> writes: <snip/> > > Do you know the reason why the same kind of inheritance doesn't > > apply to the prohibition of derivation itself? If B says it is final > > with respect to restriction, and E extends B, there is no > > prohibition on R restricting E. So if the designer of B thinks he is > > preventing derivation by extension, she must still be careful to > > forbid substitution by extensions which may still be produced by > > inserting a restriction in between. > > Hmm... I can't think of anything. Possibly someone in the XML Schema > WG would be able to give us a clue? No good reason -- I think we didn't think about that case very hard, if at all. Arguably this is a loophole that should be closed in 1.1. ht -- 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: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Monday, 25 November 2002 10:18:38 UTC