- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 22:39:41 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4367 Summary: Subsumption and assertions Product: XML Schema Version: 1.1 only Platform: PC OS/Version: Windows XP Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: Structures: XSD Part 1 AssignedTo: cmsmcq@w3.org ReportedBy: mike@saxonica.com QAContact: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org The rules for Schema Component Constraint: Derivation Valid (Extension) (and similarly, Restriction, require: 1.6 The {assertions} of the {base type definition} is a prefix of the {assertions} of the complex type definition itself. This constraint appears to be true by definition. Conversely, the rules for type subsumption (Schema Component Constraint: Complex type definition actually restricts) make no mention of any requirement for the assertions on B to be a superset of those on R. This is where the rule should appear. A couple of other points: (a) defining a subset relation on sets of assertions assumes the existence of an equality relation on assertions, and therefore on XPath expressions, which has not been defined; (b) modelling the set of assertions as an ordered list and requiring a sublist rather than subset relationship seems to be a quite unnecessary complication - as with the rules for deriving any from sequence, it seems to be a rule articulated by an unimaginative implementer who knows how to handle lists and doesn't know how to handle sets.
Received on Monday, 5 March 2007 22:39:48 UTC