- 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