RE: Feature incompatiblity in XML Schema 1.0

Ah, OK.  I was pointing out that I didn't think your schema should be
allowed because it could break in the way I specified - in other words, I
would not want your schema to be legal because mine clearly wasn't.  I
didn't go the extra step of putting the substitutionGroup affiliation in
another schema so that the breakage would only occur in the instance, as I
did with the multiple substitutionGroup case, but it works about the same.

I still don't get why this kind of thing is desireable.

Matthew

-----Original Message-----
From: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk [mailto:ht@inf.ed.ac.uk]On Behalf Of Henry S.
Thompson
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 2:56 AM
To: Matthew Fuchs
Cc: Don Box; www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org; Ashok Malhotra; Martin
Gudgin; Allen Brown
Subject: Re: Feature incompatiblity in XML Schema 1.0


The schema docs as I posted them, without your additions, were legal,
because in the corresponding schema a) the
restriction accepted the same content as the base and b) it conformed
to the current by-cases restriction rules.  Your additions broke this,
by a) causing the restriction to accept more and b) breaking the
explicit by-cases rules.

In haste,

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 Thursday, 12 December 2002 21:36:48 UTC