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 2204 - R-212: Question about VR Element Locally Valid (Element) in Structures 3.3.4
Summary: R-212: Question about VR Element Locally Valid (Element) in Structures 3.3.4
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Structures: XSD Part 1 (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All All
: P4 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL:
Whiteboard: medium, easy
Keywords: resolved
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-09-14 19:08 UTC by Sandy Gao
Modified: 2006-10-11 03:06 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Sandy Gao 2005-09-14 19:08:42 UTC
Clause 5.1.1 of Validation Rule: Element Locally Valid (Element), in Structures 
section 3.3.4, reads 

5.1.1 If the actual type definition is a local type definition then the 
canonical lexical representation of the {value constraint} value must be a 
valid default for the actual type definition as defined in Element Default 
Valid (Immediate) (3.3.6). 

Two questions: 

1 is there not a term we can use for xsi:type-specified types which is less 
subject to misunderstanding than 'local type definition'? The types denoted 
here by this phrase are not local to a given element declaration, and it just 
seems like offering a pawn to fate to use the word 'local' here. Call 
them 'dynamic', call them 'instance-specified', call them 'types with polka 
dots', but is it really essential to call them 'local'? 

2 Clause 5.1.1 seems to suggest that it's only an error for an element instance 
to require / use a default value if the element instance has an xsi:type 
attribute. I think this is probably because the other case is catered for 
somewhere else, but I think it's a needless complication. I think clause 5.1.1 
can and should be simplified to say: 

5.1.1 The canonical lexical representation of the {value constraint} value must 
be a valid default for the actual type definition as defined in Element Default 
Valid (Immediate) (3.3.6). 

I think this is easier to understand both syntactically and from a design point 
of view. Is there any reason not to change it? 

See:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2003JanMar/0002.html

Henry's response:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2003JanMar/0003.html
Comment 1 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2006-09-23 18:47:20 UTC
The pointers given for further reference appear to be in error; perhaps
the correct URLs are
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2003AprJun/0002
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2003AprJun/0003
Comment 2 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2006-10-11 03:05:22 UTC
The proposal to resolve bug 3714, which was adopted 6 October 2006,
involves a change from the term 'local type definition' to
'instance-specified type definition'.  The first question raised
in the issue is thus answered.

The second question raised was addressed in Henry Thompson's
response (cited in the description and in comment #1) at  
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2003AprJun/0003

Accordingly, I am marking this issue resolved and fixed (focusing on
the first question, which was resolved, rather than the second, which
was rejected as not really a problem), and invite the originator to 
respond by changing its status to 'closed'.