- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:29:40 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3890 Summary: 3.3.6 ref. to non-existent {prohibited substitutions} of element declaration Product: XML Schema Version: 1.0/1.1 both Platform: All URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1- 20041028/#coss-element OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: Structures: XSD Part 1 AssignedTo: cmsmcq@w3.org ReportedBy: dsb@smart.net QAContact: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org Regarding _XML_Schema_Part_1:_Structures_Second_Edition at http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028/: Section 3.3.6 refers to the {prohibited substitutions} property of an element declaration: Schema Component Constraint: Substitution Group OK (Transitive) ... [an] element declaration (call it C) ... ... 2.3 ... C's {prohibited substitutions} (if C is complex ...) ... However, an element declaration has no {prohibited substitutions} property. (Element declarations have {disallowed substitution}; complex type definitions have {prohibited substitutions}.) Evidentally, that text was supposed to read either: ... C's {type definition}'s {prohibited substitutions} ... or ... C's {disallowed substitutions} ... It seems that the former is the intended meaning (since C's {prohibited substitutions} value is "passed in" as the blocking constraint when the "Substitution Group OK (Transitive)" rule is invoked from the "Element Sequence Locally Valid (Particle)" rule). Also, where it says "if C is complex," shouldn't that be "if C's {type definition} is complex"?
Received on Monday, 30 October 2006 15:29:48 UTC