- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 17:44:35 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5062 ------- Comment #2 from davep@iit.edu 2007-09-20 17:44 ------- (In reply to comment #1) > Section 4.1.5 of the status-quo draft reads in part: > > If {variety} is union, then the applicable facets are > pattern and enumeration. Thank you. Since the only applicable facets are pattern and enumeration, then if the proposed solution to bug 2947 is adopted, it seems inappropriate to define order for unions when for primitives we only define order for those primitives that accept order-requiring facets. > Would the definition of 'union' in 2.4.1 > be an appropriate location for a recapitulation? (Perhaps > a second note, after the one about what kinds of types can > be member types?) Compare the paragraph after the second example in 2.4.1.2, which states explicitly which facets are available for lists. We should have a comparable statement in 2.4.1.3 for unions. I suspect I'm not the only reader who, seeing the list statement, would expect a similar statement in a similar location for unions. And especially readers who aren't just using the datatypes for Schema won't think to look in that "structures stuff". ;-)
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2007 17:44:45 UTC