This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
The <restriction> element allows children from other namespaces than "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema", i guess src-simple-type.1 should not forbid duplicate elements from these other namespaces. So instead of: "With the exception of <enumeration>, <pattern>, and <assert>, the [children] of <restriction> do not contain more than one element information item with the same name." it should be something like: "With the exception of <enumeration>, <pattern>, and <assert>, the [children] of <restriction> do not contain more than one element information item in the Schema namespace (xs) with the same name."
In Lyon: The WG discussed this issue. It was the WG's intention to allow implementation defined facets, and there is no specific reason they cannot repeat. So, the commentator is correct, and the WG sends thanks for finding this issue.
A wording proposal intended to resolve this issue is now on the server at http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.b11222.html (member-only link)
Created attachment 943 [details] A copy of the wording proposal sent to the WG 12 Jan 2011
On 28 January 2011 the WG approved the wording proposal mentioned in comment 2 and attached to this bug report in comment 3. Accordingly, I'm marking the bug as decided. The next step is for the editors to integrate the change into the status-quo document, which should happen shortly.
The wording change mentioned in comment 2 and attached to this bug report in comment 3 has now been integrated in the WG's internal working copy (the 'status quo documents') of the spec. Accordingly, I"m marking this bug as resolved. An email notification of this change should be sent automatically by Bugzilla to Andreas Meissl, the originator of the issue, to whom the following remarks are directly addressed. Herr Meissl, thank you for pointing out this problem to us. Please examine the change shown in the attachment to comment 3 and consider whether it resolves the issue in a satisfactory way. If you are satisfied with the resolution of the issue you raised, as represented by that wording change, then please indicate so by changing the status of this bug to CLOSED. If for some reason you find the resolution unsatisfactory, then please indicate so by REOPENing the bug and indicating in the comment what's wrong. If we don't hear from you within two weeks, we will assume that you are happy with the resolution and we may close the bug ourselves. Thank you again for your help.