- From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:57:43 -0600
- To: Xan Gregg <xan.gregg@jmp.com>
- Cc: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Xan, A long time after you first raised it, the XML Schema Working Group spent some time on our telcon the other week discussing the issue you first raised in April 2004 at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/ 2004AprJun/0000.html which in turn became issue R-254 in the issue tracking system we used at that time, and later issue 2246 in W3C's public instance of Bugzilla: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2246 R-254: Clarify merge/union of facets The result of the WG discussion is reflected in comment #7, which I reproduce below. The XML Schema Working Group discussed this issue during its telcon of 7 September 2007. We noted that the wording of the relevant passage has changed. XSDL 1.0 and early drafts of 1.1 had {facets} The union of the set of Facets (2.4) components resolved to by the facet [children] merged with {facets} from {base type definition}, subject to the Facet Restriction Valid constraints specified in Facets (2.4). This has been changed, in the course of work on 1.1, to read {facets} The appropriate case among the following: 1. If the <restriction> alternative is chosen, then a set of Constraining Facet components constituting a restriction of the {facets} of the {base type definition} with respect to a set of Constraining Facet components corresponding to the appropriate element information items among the [children] of <restriction> (i.e. those which specify facets, if any), as defined in Schema Component Constraint: Simple Type Restriction (Facets). 2. If the <list> alternative is chosen, then a set with one member, a whiteSpace facet with {value} = collapse and {fixed} = true. 3. otherwise the empty set where 'constituting a restriction' is a hyperlink to the definition of that term in Structures. Note that both the word 'union' and the word 'merger' are now avoided. Xan Gregg, the originator of the comment, will be notified by separate email of this resolution and asked to confirm that this resolves the issue. This mail is to notify you formally of the resolution of the issue and to ask you to confirm that the change resolves the issue to your satisfaction (or alternatively to let us know that it does not). You can do this by responding to this email one way or the other. If we don't hear from you in three weeks, we will assume that you are happy with the change. Thanks. --Michael Sperberg-McQueen on behalf of the W3C XML Schema Working Group
Received on Monday, 17 September 2007 18:57:49 UTC