2328 2005-10-04 20:41:03 +0000 Should "restriction" always imply "subsumption"? 2009-04-21 19:21:40 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Structures: XSD Part 1 1.1 only All All CLOSED FIXED important, hard, restriction cluster resolved P3 normal --- 1 sandygao cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 6641 0 sandygao 2005-10-04 20:41:03 +0000 From earlier discussion among working group members on restriction/subsumption, there seem to be cases where R is derived from B by restriction but there are instances allowed by R but not by B. As a concerete example, please see bug 2205 (http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2205) 12572 1 cmsmcq 2006-10-21 20:31:41 +0000 On 20 October 2006, the WG agreed to close this issue without change to the spec. The rationale given was that (given an appropriate definition of subsumption in line with the agreed behavior regarding element declarations, value constraints, etc.) yes, restriction should entail subsumption, and examples like that cited in bug 2205 are correctly handled (flagged as errors) by the current text of the spec.