This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 2178 - R-184: Question about pattern and union types
Summary: R-184: Question about pattern and union types
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Datatypes: XSD Part 2 (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: resolved
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-09-14 18:42 UTC by Sandy Gao
Modified: 2009-04-21 19:21 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Sandy Gao 2005-09-14 18:42:06 UTC
Is it clear what string the pattern facet of a union type applies to? 

It seems to me it should be the lexical space value of the winning type in the 
union, i.e. when processing an item with a union type, we go directly to the 
member type definitions, and for each one in turn: 

1. normalize per the whiteSpace facet _of that member type defn_; 
2. check the pattern facet of the union type itself; 
3. check the pattern facet of the member type defn; 
4. convert to value and check other facets from the member type defn. 

If any of (2), (3) or (4) fail, go on to the next member type defn. 

I don't think the REC as it currently stands makes clear that this is what 
happens, or that it doesn't.

See:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2002OctDec/0060.html
Comment 2 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2006-09-21 00:00:29 UTC
At the face to face meeting of January 2006 in St. Petersburg,
the Working Group decided not to take further action on this
issue in XML Schema 1.1.  (This issue was not discussed
separately; it was one of those which were dispatched by a
blanket decision that all other open issues would be closed
without action, unless raised again in last-call comments.)  Some
members of the Working Group expressed regret over not being able
to resolve all the issues dealt with in this way, but on the
whole the Working Group felt it better not to delay Datatypes 1.1
in order to resolve all of them.

This issue should have been marked as RESOLVED /WONTFIX at that
time, but apparently was not.  I am marking it that way now, to
reduce confusion.