- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:58:01 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5905 Summary: vc:typeAvailable and vc:typeUnavailable Product: XML Schema Version: 1.1 only Platform: PC OS/Version: Windows NT 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 I'm struggling with the semantics of vc:typeAvailable and vc:typeUnavailable. One might expect that one can write two alternative elements, one with vc:typeAvailable="A B C" and one with vc:typeUnavailable="A B C", and exactly one of the two will be chosen. But this is not the case. The first attribute causes the element to be used if and only if ALL the types are available, while the second causes it to be used if and only if ALL the types are unavailable. I think it would be much more useful and intuitive for these attributes to be complementary. I think that vc:typeUnavailable should cause the element to be used if ANY of the types is unavailable. That is, it is ignored if and only if all the types are available, which means changing the wording to: vc:typeUnavailable = T, where every item in the ·actual value· T is the expanded name of some type definition ·automatically known· to and supported by the processor and similarly for vc:facetUnavailable. [We might want to spell out that the universal quantifier is always true for an empty set.] In the common use case where the list is of length one the meaning is unchanged. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2008 15:06:28 UTC