[Bug 2204] R-212: Question about VR Element Locally Valid (Element) in Structures 3.3.4

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2204

           Summary: R-212: Question about VR Element Locally Valid (Element)
                    in Structures 3.3.4
           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


Clause 5.1.1 of Validation Rule: Element Locally Valid (Element), in Structures 
section 3.3.4, reads 

5.1.1 If the actual type definition is a local type definition then the 
canonical lexical representation of the {value constraint} value must be a 
valid default for the actual type definition as defined in Element Default 
Valid (Immediate) (3.3.6). 

Two questions: 

1 is there not a term we can use for xsi:type-specified types which is less 
subject to misunderstanding than 'local type definition'? The types denoted 
here by this phrase are not local to a given element declaration, and it just 
seems like offering a pawn to fate to use the word 'local' here. Call 
them 'dynamic', call them 'instance-specified', call them 'types with polka 
dots', but is it really essential to call them 'local'? 

2 Clause 5.1.1 seems to suggest that it's only an error for an element instance 
to require / use a default value if the element instance has an xsi:type 
attribute. I think this is probably because the other case is catered for 
somewhere else, but I think it's a needless complication. I think clause 5.1.1 
can and should be simplified to say: 

5.1.1 The canonical lexical representation of the {value constraint} value must 
be a valid default for the actual type definition as defined in Element Default 
Valid (Immediate) (3.3.6). 

I think this is easier to understand both syntactically and from a design point 
of view. Is there any reason not to change it? 

See:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2003JanMar/0002.html

Henry's response:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2003JanMar/0003.html

Received on Wednesday, 14 September 2005 19:08:54 UTC