This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
raised on 25 Jun 2004 by Sandy Gao: 2.2 mentions that identity is *only* used for enumeration and identity constraints; and equality is *only* used in conjunction with order (presumably when checking the range facets). But I suppose "fixed value constraint" also needs to use one of these 2 relations. Did we make a decision? agreed on 3 Dec 2004 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/ 2004Dec/0002.html) RESOLVED Close wd-2 by instructing the editors to treat fixed value constraints the same as enumeration with regards to identity vs equality.
announced by group on 3 Dec 2004 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml- schema-ig/2004Dec/0002.html) agreement by reviewer on 3 Dec 2004 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c- xml-schema-ig/2004Dec/0002.html) Action history Part 2 Editors accepted on 3 Dec 2004 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/ 2004Dec/0002.html) Editors to treat fixed value constraints the same as enumeration with regards to identity vs equality.
I remain somewhat concerned about this resolution, especially given the possibility that we would add a PSVI property reflecting the value, as opposed to lexical form, of a validated element or attribute. As I understand our resolution, it says that I can have a precisionDecimal element with a fixed="4.000", and an instance with <e>4.0</e>, and the instance will validate. What will we report in the PSVI as the value? If it's fixed at 4.000 it seems odd to report 4.0, since we said the value is fixed and 4.000 is clearly a different value. Similarly, it seems odd to report 4.000, since the instance clearly contains the lexical form of 4.0. At the very least, I think we should note the possible tie in between this issue and our possible plans to report values in the PSVI. Note that no such concern seems to arise with default="4.000", which has historically been closely tied to "fixed". Maybe or maybe not we should take one more look at enumeration, but it certainly seems odd to have an element that's explicitly "fixed" and then to report the element has legally having a different value. Noah
(In reply to comment #2) > As I understand our resolution, it says that I can have a precisionDecimal > element with a fixed="4.000", and an instance with <e>4.0</e>, and the instance > will validate. What will we report in the PSVI as the value? If it's fixed at > 4.000 it seems odd to report 4.0, since we said the value is fixed and 4.000 is > clearly a different value. Similarly, it seems odd to report 4.000, since the > instance clearly contains the lexical form of 4.0. If the element type requires a fixed value of 4.000 then 4.0 had better not validate, since they are not identical. (We agreed to treat fixed values as enumerations, which in turn means identity, not equality.)
Dave Peterson wrote: > (We agreed to treat fixed values as > enumerations, which in turn means > identity, not equality.) I somehow misread this bugzilla thread as implying that we were going with equality or at least considering going with equality, possibly for both of them. If not, then my comment is indeed off base. Thanks. Noah
Proposal approved http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-wg/2005May/ 0018