2309 2005-09-28 11:48:55 +0000 Clarify identity of values across related simple types 2008-02-08 23:24:46 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Structures: XSD Part 1 unspecified PC Linux RESOLVED FIXED eq cluster resolved P1 normal --- 1 cmsmcq cmsmcq sandygao www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 6516 0 cmsmcq 2005-09-28 11:48:55 +0000 In 3.11.1, Structures says "Values of differing type can only be equal if one type is derived [a recent proposal substitutes 'constructed'] from the other, and the value is in the value space of both. This has, perhaps, two problems: (1) It suggests that any given value belongs just to one type, while Datatypes is more or less elaborately built around the notion that simple type restriction creates subsets of value spaces, which means the xsd:integer value 37 is identical to the the xsd:decimal value 37. (2) Two types can have overlapping value spaces (in the world according to Datatypes) if each is constructed from the same primitive type; it is NOT necessary that one be constructed from the other. An integer that comes in tagged as being of type xsd:integer and an integer that comes in tagged as being of type (union of xsd:decimal and string, with member type xsd:decimal) should be identical for the purposes mentioned here. A related point is that if singleton lists of integers are to be identical to atomic integers (some WG members believe this is entailed by the decisions on Bug 2045 [and Bug 2046 and Bug 2047] made in May 2005 in North Carolina, others are not completely sure, see resolution of those bugs for the final story), then this sentence and others will almost surely need further work. This requires both a corrigendum in 1.0 and a change in 1.1. 6651 1 sandygao 2005-10-06 16:01:58 +0000 *** Bug 2327 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** 14073 2 cmsmcq 2007-02-23 18:38:35 +0000 On the call of 23 February 2007 the Working agreed to class this issue as editorial. 18744 3 cmsmcq 2008-02-05 02:31:22 +0000 A wording proposal for this issue (among others) was sent to the XML Schema WG on 4 February 2008. http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.consent.200802.html (member-only link) For some issues, the proposal is effectively to make no change; see the Status section of the proposal for the specifics. 18930 4 cmsmcq 2008-02-08 23:24:46 +0000 During its telcon today, the XML Schema WG accepted the 'Structures Omnibus 2' proposal, which includes changes intended to resolve this issue. (Or, for some issues, contains the editors' proposal that the issue should be closed without further changes.) http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.consent.200801.html (member-only link) Accordingly, I'm marking the issue resolved. The originator of this issue (or in some cases the individual, acting on behalf of a group, who filed the comment) should receive an email notification of this change. Please examine the changes 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.