2045 2005-09-08 22:20:11 +0000 R-181: clarify equality and identity of lists (error, corrigendum needed) 2007-03-29 18:48:46 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Datatypes: XSD Part 2 1.0 only PC Linux ASSIGNED http://www.w3.org/2001/05/xmlschema-rec-comments.html#pfiListEquality needsDrafting P2 normal --- 2423 1 cmsmcq cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 5899 0 cmsmcq 2005-09-08 22:20:11 +0000 [This issue was originally raised by Stefan Wachter in November 2002. It was booked as Rec Comment R-181 and is now being transferred into Bugzilla.] When a list valued element or attribute is used as a key then the equality of the values is important. In the following example there are 3 lists with item types "Name", "double", "nameOrDouble": <simpleType name="l1"> <list itemType="Name"/> <simpleType> <simpleType name="l2"> <list itemType="double"/> <simpleType> <simpleType name="l3"> <list itemType="tns:nameOrDouble"/> <simpleType> <simpleType name="nameOrDouble"> <union memberTypes="Name double"/> <simpleType> Are these lists equal? 1. Items types of lists are different but item types of items are equal: <element xsi:type="l1">1.0 2.0<element> = <element xsi:type="l3">1.0 2.0<element> 2. Item types of lists are different but there are no items. <element xsi:type="l1"/> = <element xsi:type="l2"/> What are the exact rules for comparing lists? Originally raised in: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlschema-dev/2002Nov/0066.html Response from Henry Thompson on 18 November 2002, agreeing that the rules should be cleaned up. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2002OctDec/0051.html Proposal from Ashok Malhotra, 29 November 2003: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2003Nov/0054.html Discussed at the 2004-02-12 telecon. Decided that we need new draft text based on current 2E. Discussed again at the May 2005 face to face meeting. Action NC2005-15: Datatype editors to resolve R-181 by defining identity and equality of lists in terms of pairwise member identity and equality, respectively. Note that we need both a 1.0 corrigendum and a wording proposal for 1.1. Because identity and equality are distinct relations in 1.1 but not in 1.0, the wording proposals will not necessarily be the same. This record is for the 1.0 corrigendum. 5902 1 cmsmcq 2005-09-08 22:30:54 +0000 See bug 2046 and bug 2047 for the 1.1 version of this issue.