- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 18:02:15 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3969 Summary: Assertions: problems with basic concepts Product: XML Schema Version: 1.1 only Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: Structures: XSD Part 1 AssignedTo: cmsmcq@w3.org ReportedBy: fabio@cs.unibo.it QAContact: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org Concepts ------- 1) Report AND Assert: Having both assert and report in the syntax seems (and has always seemed) redundant and unclean. Both can be expressed in terms of the other so only one is necessary. Having them both and calling them assert and report are the last vestige of Schematron, and considering that the current proposal in many ways differ from Schematron (not least the fact that we associate CC to types rather than elements) makes the Schematron-like syntax confusing and uncalled for. 2) Why should assert and report be elements? Getting rid of the two elements would allow us to get rid of the element itself, and just rely on a single attribute (e.g., test) to be placed anywhere, but most appropriately in the complexType element itself. 3) CC and extensions: CC always provide restrictions to the expressed content model. It is my impression that so far derivation by restriction and derivation by extension have been kept carefully separated, and features of one have never allowed when using the other (AFAIK I cannot restrict an optional behavior when extending a type). Now CC allow me to mix the two approaches: I can practically (if not theoretically) restrict a type with CC while extending it with the content model expression. I have nothing per se against this, but it is a strong deviation with the past. Do we all like it?
Received on Friday, 10 November 2006 18:02:33 UTC