- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:03:29 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- Cc:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2167
Summary: R-170: Inconsistent use of the term "derived"
Product: XML Schema
Version: 1.0
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: XSD Part 1: Structures
AssignedTo: ht@w3.org
ReportedBy: sandygao@ca.ibm.com
QAContact: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
XML Schema Part 1 (Structure) and XML Schema Part 2 (Datatypes) seem to have
different notions of "derived" for simple types.
According to Part1, setion 3.14.6, Schema Component Constraint: Type Derivation
OK (Simple), type unions and list extensions are NOT "derived" from their
respective member types (but their member types are regarded as "derived" from
the union type resp. list extension).
This is in contrast to Part 2, which defines union types and list extensions
as "derived" from their respective member types (2.5.2.2 and 2.4.2.3).
The inconsistent semantics of "derived" can lead to confusion among schema
authors, in particular when working with substituion groups, instance type
overriding, and redefinitions.
We suggest to drop the term "derived" for type unions and list extensions in
XML Schema Part 2 and to replace it with the term "constructed". This would
also affect the classification of the built-in types NMTOKENS, IDREFS, and
ENTITIES, which are no longer "derived by list" but "constructed by list".
See:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2002JulSep/0014.html
Ashok's response:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2002JulSep/0022.html
Received on Wednesday, 14 September 2005 18:04:57 UTC