- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:00:47 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7069 --- Comment #1 from C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> 2009-07-17 16:00:47 --- This seems like an unfortunate lapse into paternalism. The existing rule 2 prevents a semantic train wreck: if it's violated, the schema document has no interpretation. The situation outlawed by the proposed rule 2b, on the other hand, has a completely coherent interpretation. It's analogous to an "if (false) then ..." construct in most programming languages, or an XSLT template with mode="m", where mode m is never used. In practice, when experimenting with changes in a schema, I expect it to be handy to be able to turn open content off in a particular type, while retaining the wildcard in case I later want to go back to allowing open content; this is most important, of course, in cases where the wildcard is complicated and might be onerous to reconstruct from scratch. (That's also when I use mode="nonesuch" in my XSLT stylesheets.) Speaking for myself, I'd rather not make this change. -- 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 Friday, 17 July 2009 16:00:58 UTC