- From: <Ulrich.Post@softwareag.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 18:59:48 +0100
- To: <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <0AE50E462665EB4898CACAC8DA16982203F08C0B@DAEMSG03.eur.ad.sag>
Hello I'm wondering whether the following is a bug in the XML Schema Recommendation: At http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#rcase-NameAndTypeOK <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/> it is stated that "3.2.3 R's declaration's {identity-constraint definitions} <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/> is a subset of B's declaration's {identity-constraint definitions} <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/> , if any." To my opinion this would mean, that there are fewer constraints on R than on B - which is probably not intended. Look at the following two element declarations: (1) <xs:element name="e"> <xsd:complexType> <xsd:sequence> <xsd:element name="uid" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> </xsd:sequence> </xsd:complexType> </xs:element> (2) <xs:element name="e"> <xsd:complexType> <xsd:sequence> <xsd:element name="uid" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> </xsd:sequence> </xsd:complexType> <xsd:unique name="uid"> <xsd:selector xpath="uid"/> <xsd:field xpath="."/> </xsd:unique> </xs:element> Obviously, (1)'s identity constraints are a subset of (2)'s. When looking at these I end up with the conclusion that (2) is a valid restriction of (1) rather than vice versa. Would you agree on this? Best regards Uli Post
Received on Tuesday, 7 December 2004 18:00:31 UTC