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 2328 - Should "restriction" always imply "subsumption"?
Summary: Should "restriction" always imply "subsumption"?
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Structures: XSD Part 1 (show other bugs)
Version: 1.1 only
Hardware: All All
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL:
Whiteboard: important, hard, restriction cluster
Keywords: resolved
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-10-04 20:41 UTC by Sandy Gao
Modified: 2009-04-21 19:21 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Sandy Gao 2005-10-04 20:41:03 UTC
From earlier discussion among working group members on restriction/subsumption, 
there seem to be cases where R is derived from B by restriction but there are 
instances allowed by R but not by B. As a concerete example, please see
bug 2205 (http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2205)
Comment 1 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2006-10-21 20:31:41 UTC
On 20 October 2006, the WG agreed to close this issue without change to
the spec.  The rationale given was that (given an appropriate definition
of subsumption in line with the agreed behavior regarding element 
declarations, value constraints, etc.) yes, restriction should entail
subsumption, and examples like that cited in bug 2205 are correctly
handled (flagged as errors) by the current text of the spec.