- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:20:38 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6163 Summary: 3.10.6.3 Attribute Wildcard Union 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 (1) The Note: Note: If a wildcard union is inexpressible, any rule requiring that one Namespace Constraint be that union cannot be satisfied. is unnecessary, because there is no such rule. (2) The final paragraph is unnecessary, because there is nowhere in the spec that takes a wildcard union with more than two Namespace Constraints as operands. (Wildcard union is used only when one type T is derived by extension from another type B, and this involves only two wildcards.) (3) Rule 4 in the final list is structurally misplaced. Given that the definition has adopted the style "O is the union of O1 and O2 if and only if...", the notion that the union of O1 and O2 might not exist cannot logically be part of this definition. I would move it right up to the front, and then qualify the rest by "If the union of O1 and O2 is expressible, then O is the union of O1 and O2 if and only if..." (4) Finally, and more substantively, I'm having trouble seeing why the wildcard union should be inexpressible in the circumstances stated, or indeed in any circumstances. The union, surely, should match everything that is matched either by one wildcard or by the other or by both. The union could be defined either extensionally (treating "defined" as simply a synonym for the list of names of global attribute declarations present in the schema), or intensionally (if one wildcard excludes "defined" attributes and the other does not, then the union does not exclude "defined" attributes). -- 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 Wednesday, 15 October 2008 13:20:48 UTC