- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 15:37:36 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7796 Summary: Misleading statement on change to unions Product: XML Schema Version: 1.1 only Platform: PC OS/Version: Windows XP Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: Structures: XSD Part 1 AssignedTo: David_E3@VERIFONE.com ReportedBy: kbraun@obj-sys.com QAContact: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org CC: cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com In the "changes since" appendix: "An error in version 1.0 of this specification relating to the construction of union types from other union types has been corrected. Unions may now appear as members of other unions, and all restrictions of unions are correctly enforced, even when xsi:type is used on an element to name a member of the union." As I understand it, rather than having a correct enforcement of a restriction on unions when xsi:type is used to name a member of the union, the specification prevents this. Assuming that the restriction was not pointless (it has some facets), by 2.2.4.3 of 3.16.6.3 Type Derivation OK (Simple), none of the member types can be said to validly derive from the restriction. That makes using xsi:type to specify a member type illegal. It would also be helpful to point to where the specification was changed, or what the implications of getting rid of flattening for {memberTypes} are (see for example, bug 2233). Was it only to prevent a memberType from being considered as deriving from a restriction? -- 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, 2 October 2009 15:37:40 UTC