[Bug 4602] NOTATION and enumeration

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4602





--- Comment #11 from C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>  2009-04-15 16:55:01 ---
I think the concern expressed by NM in comment 10 is well placed, but 
the wording in comment 9 does in fact go a little bit out of its way to
avoid saying or implying that types can be derived from NOTATION only
by using XSD.  Am I missing something in the wording, or missing another
possible reading of it? 

Imagine I develop Michael's Schema Language (MSL), and decree that in
MSL you can restrict NOTATION by writing 

  <msl:simple name="equation_notations" restricts="xsd:NOTATION">
    <enum>TeX</enum>
    <enum>tex</enum>
    <enum>LaTeX</enum>
    <enum>MathML</enum>
    <enum vc:maxVersion="0.9">eqn</enum>
  </msl:simple>

and that I require MSL processors to check that the values of
equation_notation are also legal as values of NOTATION (either
at run time, since MSL defines restriction as just the addition of
further constraints, or at compilation time, as an optimization).

Imagine that you now come to me and say "but NOTATION says
you're not allowed to do that!  There's a constraint that says the
only literals that can be validated directly against NOTATION are
the ones used to derive a new type from NOTATION."

And I say "Yes?  What is it that the literals 'TeX', 'tex', etc. are
doing, if not specifying the derivation of 'equation_notations'
from 'xsd:NOTATION'?  The rule in the spec licenses precisely
this case."

It's true that the text mentions XSD as an example of a language
that makes use of this license.  But I don't see a way to read
the proposal as restricting the license to XSD.

What am I missing?


-- 
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 April 2009 16:55:17 UTC