2750 2006-01-20 21:34:06 +0000 wd-24: Regarding upper and lower bounds (another problem with paternalism) 2006-09-21 00:00:31 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Datatypes: XSD Part 2 1.1 only PC Windows XP RESOLVED WONTFIX needsAgreement P2 normal --- 1 holstege cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 7914 0 holstege 2006-01-20 21:34:06 +0000 The definition of maxInclusive defines a constraint on schemas that says: Schema Component Constraint: maxInclusive valid restriction It is an error if any of the following conditions is true: 1 maxInclusive is among the members of {facets} of {base type definition} and {value} is greater than the {value} of that maxInclusive. 2 maxExclusive is among the members of {facets} of {base type definition} and {value} is greater than or equal to the {value} of that maxExclusive. 3 minInclusive is among the members of {facets} of {base type definition} and {value} is less than the {value} of that minInclusive. 4 minExclusive is among the members of {facets} of {base type definition} and {value} is less than or equal to the {value} of that minExclusive. This suggests that incompatible or nonsensical values for upper and lower bounds are illegal, but only if imposed in different steps. Does that mean that it's legal to write the following? <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:integer"> <xsd:maxInclusive value="10"/> <xsd:maxExclusive value="10"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> Or have I missed some rule elsewhere? I take this as another instantiation of the principle that a paternalist's work is never done, and that life will be simpler and we will have more confidence in the correctness of our spec if we abandon paternalism. Proposal concerning Part 2 maxInclusive Schema Component Constraint: maxInclusive valid restriction Discussion history 27 Jan 2005 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/ 2005JanMar/0019.html) Transition history raised on 27 Jan 2005 by C. M. Sperberg-McQueen (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/ Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2005JanMar/0018.html) 7938 1 davep 2006-01-20 22:50:29 +0000 (In reply to comment #0) > This suggests that incompatible or nonsensical values for upper and lower bounds > are illegal, but only if imposed in different steps. Without having time to search, it's my recollection that one cannot put "In" and "Ex" (for the same one of "max" and "min") in the same step. So that excludes some of the silly options. 11922 2 cmsmcq 2006-09-21 00:00:31 +0000 At the face to face meeting of January 2006 in St. Petersburg, the Working Group decided not to take further action on this issue in XML Schema 1.1. (This issue was not discussed separately; it was one of those which were dispatched by a blanket decision that all other open issues would be closed without action, unless raised again in last-call comments.) Some members of the Working Group expressed regret over not being able to resolve all the issues dealt with in this way, but on the whole the Working Group felt it better not to delay Datatypes 1.1 in order to resolve all of them. This issue should have been marked as RESOLVED /WONTFIX at that time, but apparently was not. I am marking it that way now, to reduce confusion.