2204 2005-09-14 19:08:42 +0000 R-212: Question about VR Element Locally Valid (Element) in Structures 3.3.4 2006-10-11 03:06:01 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Structures: XSD Part 1 unspecified All All CLOSED FIXED medium, easy resolved P4 normal --- 1 sandygao cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 6221 0 sandygao 2005-09-14 19:08:42 +0000 Clause 5.1.1 of Validation Rule: Element Locally Valid (Element), in Structures section 3.3.4, reads 5.1.1 If the actual type definition is a local type definition then the canonical lexical representation of the {value constraint} value must be a valid default for the actual type definition as defined in Element Default Valid (Immediate) (3.3.6). Two questions: 1 is there not a term we can use for xsi:type-specified types which is less subject to misunderstanding than 'local type definition'? The types denoted here by this phrase are not local to a given element declaration, and it just seems like offering a pawn to fate to use the word 'local' here. Call them 'dynamic', call them 'instance-specified', call them 'types with polka dots', but is it really essential to call them 'local'? 2 Clause 5.1.1 seems to suggest that it's only an error for an element instance to require / use a default value if the element instance has an xsi:type attribute. I think this is probably because the other case is catered for somewhere else, but I think it's a needless complication. I think clause 5.1.1 can and should be simplified to say: 5.1.1 The canonical lexical representation of the {value constraint} value must be a valid default for the actual type definition as defined in Element Default Valid (Immediate) (3.3.6). I think this is easier to understand both syntactically and from a design point of view. Is there any reason not to change it? See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2003JanMar/0002.html Henry's response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2003JanMar/0003.html 11977 1 cmsmcq 2006-09-23 18:47:20 +0000 The pointers given for further reference appear to be in error; perhaps the correct URLs are http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2003AprJun/0002 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2003AprJun/0003 12387 2 cmsmcq 2006-10-11 03:05:22 +0000 The proposal to resolve bug 3714, which was adopted 6 October 2006, involves a change from the term 'local type definition' to 'instance-specified type definition'. The first question raised in the issue is thus answered. The second question raised was addressed in Henry Thompson's response (cited in the description and in comment #1) at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2003AprJun/0003 Accordingly, I am marking this issue resolved and fixed (focusing on the first question, which was resolved, rather than the second, which was rejected as not really a problem), and invite the originator to respond by changing its status to 'closed'.