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 3519 - Define 'weakened' wildcards
Summary: Define 'weakened' wildcards
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
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: resolved
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-07-20 22:10 UTC by C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Modified: 2008-03-08 15:24 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2006-07-20 22:10:40 UTC
To ease the pain currently imposed by the Unique Particle Attribution
constraint, change the rules for interpreting content models to
specify that wildcards and elements have different priorities;
when an element in the input matches both a wildcard and an
element particle in the content model, the element particle wins --
and there is no violation of the UPA constraint.

This proposal has been discussed off and on for a long time, but
there appears not to be a separately trackable Bugzilla entry for
it, so I am adding this one now.  Related issues include
bug 2867 (negative wildcards), bug 2544 (interaction between wildcards
and element-declarations consistent), and possibly others.

The WG agreed in principle on the technical solution to be adopted
here (namely: yes, declare that competition between an element
particle and a wildcard particle is not a violation of UPA) 
at its ftf meeting of November 2005 in Toronto.
Comment 1 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2006-10-14 14:11:52 UTC
In August, the WG considered a proposal to introduce 'weakened' 
wildcards by reformulating the Unique Particle Attribution constraint 
to allow competition between element particles and wildcard
particles.  Competition between element particles, and between
wildcard particles, continues to be a violation of the
constraint.  The proposal was adopted at the WG's face to face
meeting of August 2006, and the changes appear in the working
draft published 31 August.

This issue should, I believe, have been closed then, but was left
open, apparently in an oversight.  So I am marking it closed now.
Anyone aware of a reason this issue should NOT be closed should
reopen it and explain why.