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 2317 - Clarify ID/IDREF rules for unions and lists
Summary: Clarify ID/IDREF rules for unions and lists
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Structures: XSD Part 1 (show other bugs)
Version: 1.1 only
Hardware: PC Linux
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL:
Whiteboard: medium, work
Keywords: needsAgreement
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-09-28 14:25 UTC by C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Modified: 2006-11-22 05:14 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2005-09-28 14:25:20 UTC
Section 3.15.5 of Structures talks about constraints on values
of type ID and IDREF and IDREFS.  It needs to cover unions and
lists of such values, but it almost certainly should not cover
all values of types constructed from ID or IDREFS:  otherwise
the integer 123 gets put into the ID/IDREF tables whenever it
appears as a value of a type declared as union of ID and integer.

At its meeting of 2005-09-28, the Working Group decided we
need to track this as a separate issue.
Comment 1 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2005-09-28 14:29:05 UTC
I think (speaking for myself) that the right way to solve this problem is
to develop, within the Working Group and within the spec, a clearer and
cleaner way of talking about the types (plural) of values and the 
type (singular? or types plural?) of an element or attribute. 

Ultimately, what we want to say is that atomic values of type ID and
IDREF go into the relevant tables.  We don't currently have a good
way of saying it in any simple form.
Comment 2 Sandy Gao 2006-11-22 05:14:17 UTC
Proposal: only add a value to ID/IDREF table when it's actually validated using ID/IDREF or a type derived from them.

Resolution: adopted at 2006-10-17 telecon.