- 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