This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
This issue was originally reported by Asir Vedamuthu, Mary Holstege. Today, there is no mechanism to trace back the origin of some of the components that were assembled via compiling a complex/simple type definition. Suppose one type extends another type by adding additional terms to a sequence. In the schema component model there is no direct way to determine which terms in the sequence come from the base type: the inheritance is "compiled out" as it were. How does this issue apply to Simple Type Definition? via Simple Type Definition.{facets} property. This property is a union of the set of Facets components resolved to by the facet [children] merged with {facets} from {base type definition}, subject .. See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2002Oct/0222.html See also http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-xmlschema-ref-20030109/#issue_derived_cm_not_manifest This item was classified as Req in the meeting of 2004-03-11 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2004Mar/0026.html). This item was discussed, and phase-1 agreement was reached, in the meeting of 2004-04-02 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2004Apr/0041.html). According to the requirements document, phase-1 agreement has been reached.
See also bug 2195, which appears to be a duplicate of this one.
On 22 December, the WG concluded that the answer to this issue is 'content model particles are reused, not copied, and ditto for facets'. See bug 2195.
Bug was previously closed, but requires clarification and is therefore being reopened. ACTION 2006-12-22.6: editors to find a good place for a note clarifying the status quo portions addressed in 2842.
A wording proposal including changes relevant to this issue (among other things) went to the WG 4 Feb 2008: http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.consent.200802.html (member-only link). Accordingly, I'm changing the status keyword.
During its telcon today, the XML Schema WG accepted the 'Structures Omnibus 2' proposal, which includes changes intended to resolve this issue. (Or, for some issues, contains the editors' proposal that the issue should be closed without further changes.) http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.consent.200801.html (member-only link) Accordingly, I'm marking the issue resolved. The originator of this issue (or in some cases the individual, acting on behalf of a group, who filed the comment) should receive an email notification of this change. Please examine the changes and let us know if you agree with this resolution of your issue, by adding a comment to the issue record and changing the Status of the issue to Closed. Or, if you do not agree with this resolution, please add a comment explaining why. If you wish to appeal the WG's decision to the Director, then also change the Status of the record to Reopened. If you wish to record your dissent, but do not wish to appeal the decision to the Director, then change the Status of the record to Closed. If we do not hear from you in the next two weeks, we will assume you agree with the WG decision.