- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:14:05 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- Cc:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1916 Summary: EP-16: lexical mappings are relations, not necessarily functions Product: XML Schema Version: 1.1 Platform: PC OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: XSD Part 2: Datatypes AssignedTo: cmsmcq@w3.org ReportedBy: cmsmcq@w3.org QAContact: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org At the ftf of May 2005 the WG recognized the need to ensure that all parts of the Datatypes spec provide a consistent account of the nature of lexical mappings and the value and lexical spaces. The invariants we wish to express are: For all types, the lexical space is the domain of the lexical mapping, and the value space its domain. There are no ineffable values, there are no meaningless lexical forms. For all primitive types and all types derived from them by restriction or constructed from them by list, the lexical mapping is a function: each lexical form uniquely determines a value. For the special types, however, and for union types, the lexical mapping is not (necessarily) a function. When these are used as the types of elements, xsi:type can used to specify which mapping to use. (It is also true that the context in which our type system is used may provide other mechanisms for addressing this problem. The untypedAtomic mechanism of QT is one such; we should write nothing that appears to conflict with the existence of such a mechanism.) The descriptions of the special types, of lexical mappings in general, and of unions should be reviewed and if necessary revised to ensure that the invariants identified above are stated clearly and that nothing is stated which contradicts them. At the ftf in August 2005 the WG asked the editors to provide wording for this topic to be considered at our meeting of 2 September 2005.
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2005 18:14:12 UTC