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 2782 - Structures description of anySimpleType needs work
Summary: Structures description of anySimpleType needs work
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
: P4 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL:
Whiteboard: thimble, easy
Keywords: resolved
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-01-30 18:37 UTC by C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Modified: 2006-10-27 21:16 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2006-01-30 18:37:36 UTC
The Schema Component Constraint: Simple Type Definition Properties
Correct in section 3.14.6 of Structures reads in part:

  All of the following must be true:

  2 All simple type definitions are derived ultimately from the
    ·simple ur-type definition (so· circular definitions are
    disallowed). That is, it is possible to reach a built-in primitive
    datatype or the ·simple ur-type definition· by repeatedly
    following the {base type type definition}.

Since 'derived' is not defined in Datatypes so as to be a reflexive
relation, this wording is problematic.  Possible recastings include:

Take I

    2 All simple type definitions are, or are derived ultimately from,
    the ·simple ur-type definition (so· circular definitions are
    disallowed). That is, it is possible to reach a built-in primitive
    datatype or the ·simple ur-type definition· by following the {base
    type type definition} zero or more times.

Take II

  2 All simple type definitions are, or are derived ultimately from,
    the ·simple ur-type definition (so· circular definitions are
    disallowed). That is, from any ordinary simple type definition it
    is possible to reach a built-in primitive datatype or the ·simple
    ur-type definition· by following the {base type type definition}
    zero or more times.
Comment 1 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2006-10-27 21:16:51 UTC
At its call of today, the WG agreed to adopt the Take I wording
given in comment #1 and close the issue.