- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 01:08:12 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3969 cmsmcq@w3.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Keywords| |resolved Resolution| |INVALID ------- Comment #2 from cmsmcq@w3.org 2007-02-24 01:08 ------- This issue has been addressed in a wording proposal adopted at the New Orleans face to face meeting on 31 January of this year; final amendments to the wording were approved on today's WG teleconference. Accordingly, I'm marking this issue as closed. The quick summary: the 'report' element has been deleted, as suggested in point 1). The 'assert' element, however, remains an element, since the WG regarded the ability to have several distinct assertions, with distinct annotations and identities, on the same type. So point 2) was not adopted. On point 3), the views of the WG were divided, so the answer to your rhetorical question is: no, not everyone likes the ability to add assertions in the course of defining an extension. But those of that mind failed to persuade the rest of the WG. One reason given for retaining the status quo was that there are already cases with similar effect: by adding an attribute declaration whose name matches a pre-existing wildcard, an extension can effectively restrict a complex type (since attributes with that name must now conform to the specified type), even in the course of an extension step. Most persuasive for some in the WG, perhaps, was the observation that one might want to add elements X, Y, and Z to a complex type, and at the same time make an assertion about their interrelations. It would seem awkward to require two derivation steps to do such a natural thing. Allowing such an extension step also seems to require allowing the extension step to add X, Y, and Z, and at the same time restrict the interrelation of children A, B, and C. Even if this seems odd, it was felt that this is an acceptable price for being able to make assertions about X, Y, and Z at the time they are added to the content model. Since one of the three points you make was accepted, and two were not accepted, it's not clear whether this issue should be marked FIXED or WONTFIX or INVALID. Since two out of three proposals were declined, on the grounds that there is not really a problem, I guess INVALID is arithmetically more appropriate. Accordingly, I am marking the issue RESOLVED / INVALID. As originator of the issue, Fabio, you are asked to signal whether you are content with the consideration and disposition of the comment, by changing the status from RESOLVED to CLOSED, if you agree with the disposition (or are willing to acquiesce in it), or by changing it to REOPENED if you wish to signal a strong dissent and a formal appeal from the decision of the WG. If we don't hear from you in a couple of weeks, we'll assume you are content.
Received on Saturday, 24 February 2007 01:08:24 UTC