- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:05:29 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6447
Summary: minLength and length both present
Product: XML Schema
Version: 1.1 only
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows NT
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: Datatypes: XSD Part 2
AssignedTo: cmsmcq@w3.org
ReportedBy: mike@saxonica.com
QAContact: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Depends on: 6446
Bug #6446 points out that (minLength=1, length=6) is illegal unless the type
happens to be derived from a type with (minLength=1).
This rule and its consequence for this test shows why paternalism is bad. The
minLength constraint here is redundant, whether or not it is present on the
base type, and in both cases it does no harm. Requiring a processor to accept
it in one case and reject it in the other is crazy - and the fact that this
test result has gone unchallenged until now suggests that processors are not
doing this properly.
The rule that allows the combination (length, minLength) if minLength is
unchanged from the base type is there because minLength might be automatically
inherited from the base type. Essentially, because the constraint is at the
component level, we don't know whether the facet was inherited or not, so it
would be better not to guess. If we want to have rules that constrain the set
of "locally-defined facets", we should put such rules at the XML representation
level.
--
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 Monday, 19 January 2009 15:05:38 UTC