- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 25 Nov 2002 15:18:28 +0000
- To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org, "Jeff Greif" <jgreif@alumni.princeton.edu>, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> writes:
<snip/>
> > Do you know the reason why the same kind of inheritance doesn't
> > apply to the prohibition of derivation itself? If B says it is final
> > with respect to restriction, and E extends B, there is no
> > prohibition on R restricting E. So if the designer of B thinks he is
> > preventing derivation by extension, she must still be careful to
> > forbid substitution by extensions which may still be produced by
> > inserting a restriction in between.
>
> Hmm... I can't think of anything. Possibly someone in the XML Schema
> WG would be able to give us a clue?
No good reason -- I think we didn't think about that case very hard,
if at all. Arguably this is a loophole that should be closed in 1.1.
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
W3C Fellow 1999--2002, 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/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Monday, 25 November 2002 10:18:39 UTC