- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 13 Feb 2003 09:55:17 +0000
- To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Cc: "Hugh Wallis" <hugh_wallis@hyperion.com>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> writes:
> Hi Hugh,
>
> > Hmm - but at
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#Type_Definition_Summary it says:
> >
> > [Definition:] Except for a distinguished ·ur-type definition·, every
> > ·type definition· is, by construction, either a ·restriction· or an
> > ·extension· of some other type definition. The graph of these
> > relationships forms a tree known as the Type Definition Hierarchy.
>
> Yes. That's what I meant when I said that if you went by the "spirit"
> of the rules, you'd say that it was legal to substitute xs:anyType
> with xs:string.
<snip/>
> and this falls down because none of the conditions from 2.2 are met:
> xs:string is an atomic type whose base type definition is the simple
> ur-type definition.
>
> I'd view this as a bug in the spec, personally.
Sigh, I thought we'd fixed this in the forthcoming errata, but this
case has been missed. I'll see what we can do at the last minute.
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
Half-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 Thursday, 13 February 2003 04:55:18 UTC