15853 2012-02-02 10:45:29 +0000 Wrong derivation direction in Default binding subsumes 2012-03-30 08:50:13 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Structures: XSD Part 1 1.1 only All All CLOSED FIXED editorial, resolved P2 normal --- 1 am_spamfaenger David_E3 cmsmcq mike xml.dev www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 63594 0 am_spamfaenger 2012-02-02 10:45:29 +0000 I think clause 5.1 of the Definition: "A default binding G (for general) subsumes another default binding S (for specific)..." should read: "S.{attribute declaration}.{type definition} is validly derived from G.{attribute declaration}.{type definition}, as defined in Type Derivation OK (Simple) (§3.16.6.3)." The specific simple type definition should be validly derived from the general one and not the other way round. 63651 1 mike 2012-02-03 17:12:59 +0000 Note, the section in question is 3.4.6.4 Content Type Restricts (Complex Content) 64581 2 cmsmcq 2012-02-25 02:07:41 +0000 A wording proposal intended to resolve this issue (and some others) is now at https://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.ep35.html (member-only link) So I'm marking this issue as needsReview. 66274 3 cmsmcq 2012-03-30 01:12:41 +0000 The proposal mentioned in comment 2 was adopted by the WG on 8 March and has been integrated into the WG's working copy of the status-quo text. Accordingly, I'm marking the issue as resolved. Andreas Meissl, you should get a copy of this comment by email. As the originator of the bug report, we ask that you indicate your assent to the WG's resolution of the issue by closing the bug. If for some reason you are not happy with the WG's resolution of the issue, please re-open the bug report and explain what's wrong. If we don't hear from you we'll assume you are content, given that the change adopted is precisely the one you proposed. Thank you for your attention to the spec!