- 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