- 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