- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 23 Nov 2001 10:00:19 +0000
- To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Cc: knoaman@ca.ibm.com, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> writes:
> Henry,
>
> > If you take away a constraint, you _add_ to the set of valid
> > instances! The subset requirement should run the _other way_!
>
> That *would* make more sense :) But would that mean that you'd have to
> repeat all your identity constraint definitions in the restriction
> (leading to duplicate identity constraint names) or would they somehow
> 'inherit' from one local element declaration to another?
>
> (Is there something to be said for making identity constraints schema
> components in the same vein as type definitions - have named ones
> defined at the top level and referenced from element declarations;
> have anonymous ones within element declarations?)
Yes and now -- they are so context-bound. . . -- I think I prefer the
'copying-down' option.
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
Received on Friday, 23 November 2001 04:59:34 UTC