This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
The spec needs to clearly define when actual values are equal. This relates to bug 2045 and bug 2048 about equality of values of list and union types. A specific issue is to answer the question about whether the following 2 values are equal: - a list value that only contains the integer value "5" - the integer value "5"
We discussed this at astonishing length during the Toronto ftf meeting. As far as the WG can tell, no schema + instance pair can be constructed for which the result of schema-validity assessment depends on an answer to this question. To the extent that we wish to provide an answer anyway, just to have a complete story, the majority view at the ftf was that the integer 5 should be neither identical nor equal to a singleton list containing an integer 5. We agreed to instruct the editors to draft wording accordingly.
(In reply to comment #1) > We discussed this at astonishing length during the Toronto ftf meeting. > > As far as the WG can tell, no schema + instance pair can be constructed > for which the result of schema-validity assessment depends on an > answer to this question. Not at the meeting, but I concur with this conclusion. > To the extent that we wish to provide an > answer anyway, just to have a complete story, the majority view at the > ftf was that the integer 5 should be neither identical nor equal > to a singleton list containing an integer 5. I strongly concur with this decision as well.
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.