- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 00:25:40 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2955 cmsmcq@w3.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED Keywords|decided |resolved Resolution| |LATER ------- Comment #1 from cmsmcq@w3.org 2007-05-02 00:25 ------- The XML Schema Working Group discussed this issue at some length during a face to face meeting at the end of March. Note first that the UPA constraint of XSD 1.0 has in fact been eased somewhat by the introduction of weakened wildcards. There was some sentiment (at least one member of the WG) for going further and eliminating the Unique Particle Attribution constraint entirely, as being irrational and unhelpful. But those favoring that measure were in a distinct minority. Others felt that eliminating the constraint was too big a change for XML Schema 1.1 but that it might be worth coming back to later. Some in the WG argued that the UPA constraint does provide some help for certain kinds of tools and tool development. In this connection, it was suggested that where determinism is helpful, it would suffice for spec to require that the input/output mapping (or in other words the input / PSVI mapping) of a given complex type be deterministic; UPA is strictly stronger than such a constraint. (A non-deterministic automaton may have a deterministic mapping if each pair of competing particles will provide the same annotations in the PSVI.) Unfortunately, we don't at the moment know enough about the closure properties of finite-state automata which produce output to be confident about moving toward a constraint phrased in terms of them. In the end, the chair determined that the Working Group did not have sufficient consensus to make this change, so we agreed to close the issue without further action. Since the proposal to ease the UPA constraint had active support, we chose to give the issue a resolution of LATER, indicating that we recommend to any Working Group preparing a future version of XML Schema that they consider this issue anew. Accordingly, I'm marking this issue RESOLVED / LATER.
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2007 00:25:42 UTC