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 2182 - R-189: Recursive simple type definitions
Summary: R-189: Recursive simple type definitions
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Structures: XSD Part 1 (show other bugs)
Version: 1.0/1.1 both
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 18:45 UTC by Sandy Gao
Modified: 2009-04-21 19:21 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:

Attachments

Description Sandy Gao 2005-09-14 18:45:37 UTC 
Is the following recursive definition valid? 

<xsd:schema xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
 		targetNamespace="http://foo.com"
 		xmlns="http://foo.com"
 		elementFormDefault="qualified">
 
 	<xsd:simpleType name="abcOrBoolean">
 		<xsd:union memberTypes="xsd:boolean abc"/>
 	<xsd:simpleType>
 
 	<xsd:simpleType name="abc">
 		<xsd:restriction base="abcOrBoolean">
 			<xsd:minLength value="5"/>
 		<xsd:restriction>
 	<xsd:simpleType>
<xsd:schema>

Henry's response: 

"Not allowed. There is an erratum forthcoming which is intended to clarify 
this, but, irritatingly, it doesn't catch the above case. I expect yet another 
erratum will do so."

See:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2002OctDec/0124.html
Comment 1 Sandy Gao 2005-09-14 18:45:49 UTC 
Discussed at the Feb. 7 concall. The WG agreed to classify R-189 as an error w/ 
erratum
Comment 2 Sandy Gao 2007-05-25 13:38:37 UTC 
Discussed at 2007-05-18 telecon. Adopted the following proposal.

- Require that members of a union type can't be the union type itself *or a type derived from it*.