W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > October to December 2008

[Bug 6175] Wildcard overlap

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 19:15:51 +0000
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1KvGWF-0002aa-Qx@farnsworth.w3.org>


C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@w3.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
           Keywords|                            |decided
         Resolution|                            |FIXED

--- Comment #1 from C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@w3.org>  2008-10-29 19:15:51 ---
We discussed this issue at the ftf this morning.  After some confusion and
delay, we concluded that the analysis here is essentially correct.  In the
context of this appendix, however, we believed the intensional wording offered
in the final paragraph of the description is not the right thing, and we
converged on a variant of the first wording offered, namely:

  They are both wildcards, and one of the following is true of the
  wildcard intersection of their {namespace constraint}s as defined in
  Attribute Wildcard Intersection (
    - it has {variety} = ANY
    - it has {variety} = NOT
    - it has {variety} = ENUMERATION {namespaces} != the empty set.

There was some sentiment for reducing confusion by eliminating the
word 'Attribute' from the name of the constraint being referred to. 

We also attempted to understand how the original error came about, but
the only theory we arrived at was rather strained and involved (a) omission
of an 'or', (b) bad formatting, and (c) substitution of an 'and' for an

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, 29 October 2008 19:16:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:09:12 UTC