- From: Sandy Gao <sandygao@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 12:38:09 -0500
- To: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Cc: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF7B379899.0D435F04-ON8525727C.0060203B-8525727C.0060E0FA@ca.ibm.com>
Erik, My quick reading of the request suggests that it's similar to one of the issues the WG considered earlier. See [1]. The WG considered the request and decided that the spec is correct and the clauses do not need to change. The WG also observed that this issue is a source of confusion and wants to clarify it in a note. See [2]. Can you confirm that this is the same issue as the one you are raising? Note that there are 2 steps involved in Identity Constraint validation. 1. Form the "key-sequence". In this step, it is indeed allowed for a "field" to match nothing. (Hence the key-sequence is incomplete.) 2. Verify the key-sequence. In this step, for "unique", it's OK to have incomplete key-sequence, but it's not OK for "key". So there isn't a single answer to "are incomplete key-sequences allowed". It depends on the variety of the identity constraint. [1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2543 [2] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4202 Thanks, Sandy Gao XML Parser Development, IBM Canada (1-905) 413-3255 sandygao@ca.ibm.com www-xml-schema-comments-request@w3.org wrote on 2007-01-18 10:24:49 AM: > > > > > hello. > > i am proposing a clarification of the section about how identity > constraints are validated. when i look at section 3 of the validation > section http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-1/#d0e20523, i see the > following text: > > "For each node in the ·target node set· all of the {fields}, with > that node as the context node, evaluate to either an empty node-set > or a node-set with exactly one member, which has a simple type." > > i would say this clearly allows having fields selecting optional > items. maybe this could be made more explicit, however, because > implementations differ. eclipse accepts xs:field selecting an empty > node set, whereas other implementations complain about that (they > seem to assume that the selector of a field must always select a node). > > maybe a note could make the spec easier to understand here. > > cheers and kind regards. > > erik wilde tel:+1-510-6432253 - fax:+1-510-6425814 > dret@berkeley.edu - http://dret.net/netdret > UC Berkeley - School of Information (iSchool) > >
Received on Thursday, 8 February 2007 17:38:23 UTC