2082 2005-09-09 03:18:19 +0000 R-092: Clarification required for group redefinition 2009-04-21 19:21:33 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Structures: XSD Part 1 unspecified All All CLOSED FIXED clarification cluster resolved P2 major --- 1 sandygao cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 5974 0 sandygao 2005-09-09 03:18:19 +0000 A model group definition which contains within it an anonymous complex type definition which itself references that very group is allowed: <xs:group name="list"> <xs:sequence> <xs:element name="item"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:element name="value"/> <xs:group ref="list" minOccurs="0"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> </xs:sequence> </xs:group> Attempting to redefine such a group by extension is impossible, because of clause 6.1 of Schema Representation Constraint: Redefinition Constraints and Semantics. A clarification stating that the references checked are those within the content model as such, not within types embedded therein, should be made. See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2001OctDec/0169.html 6699 1 sandygao 2005-10-14 17:49:00 +0000 Discussed at 2005-10-07 telecon. http://www.w3.org/2005/10/07-xmlschema-minutes.html#item07.2 7263 2 ht 2005-11-22 16:59:21 +0000 Discussed further in email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2005Nov/0037.html 14071 3 cmsmcq 2007-02-23 18:37:02 +0000 On the call of 23 February 2007 the Working agreed to class this issue as editorial. 18851 4 cmsmcq 2008-02-08 02:19:10 +0000 A wording proposal including changes for this issue went to the WG on 7 February 2008: http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.consent.200801.html#composition (member-only link). 18898 5 cmsmcq 2008-02-08 19:56:00 +0000 The 'Structures Omnibus 1' proposal mentioned in an earlier comment was adopted by the XML Schema Working Group today. http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.consent.200801.html (member-only link) The XML Schema WG believes that the changes adopted today resolve this issue fully. I'm changing its status accordingly. The change in status should cause email to be sent to the originator of this issue, to whom the following request is addressed. Please review the changes adopted 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.