2820 2006-02-10 22:14:54 +0000 RQ-17 Redo restriction rules (restrictn-rules) 2007-02-28 03:13:34 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Structures: XSD Part 1 1.1 only Other All RESOLVED FIXED important, work, restriction cluster resolved P2 normal --- 1 cmsmcq cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 8181 0 cmsmcq 2006-02-10 22:14:57 +0000 This issue was originally reported by Matthew Fuchs. Remove the current rules on derivation by restriction 8182 1 cmsmcq 2006-02-10 22:20:10 +0000 [Sorry, error in first submission.] This issue was originally reported by Matthew Fuchs. Remove the current rules on derivation by restriction; define legal restrictions in terms of their effect on the language, not in terms of a structural relationship between the base type and the derived type. See (member-only link) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-wg/2001May/0018.html (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-wg/2001May/0018.html). Input from Straw Poll O-14 Interacts with several other requirements; proposals for this requirement also cover or affect RQ-11 (pointless-occs), RQ-12 (choice-vs-choice), RQ-15 (id-restriction), and RQ-146 (ElementDeclarationsConsistent). Confirmed as Requirement at 2002-08-02 F2F. We discussed reclassifying it and decided not to. This item was discussed in the meetings of 2003-11-04 (http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2003/11/xml-schema-ftf-minutes.html), 2004-04-09 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2004Apr/0178.html), 2004-04-15 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2004Apr/0202.html), 2004-05-06 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2004May/0085.html), 2004-05-07 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2004May/0086.html), 2004-05-12 (http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/05/xml-schema-ftf-minutes.html), 2004-05-20 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2004May/0087.html), 2004-06-04 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2004Jun/0105.html) (not an exhaustive list). Non-status-quo wording for this issue was integrated into the published Working Draft of February 2005. At the ftf of May 2005, the editors were instructed to prepare a revised proposal for this issue. 8835 2 cmsmcq 2006-03-22 21:11:08 +0000 The revised wording requested in North Carolina at the ftf of May 2005 was sent to the WG 21 March 2006; it's at http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.rq17p.20060321.html (member-only link). In substance, the proposal is a subset of the old RQ-17 proposal of February 2005, which has been included in subsequent public drafts, marked as non-status-quo text. 14271 3 cmsmcq 2007-02-28 03:13:34 +0000 The proposal mentioned in comment #2 was adopted by the WG in April 2006. Follow-on proposals were considered and adopted at the face to face meeting in San Jose Oct/Nov 2006 and on 8 December 2006. No work is outstanding on this issue (beyond an editorial issue separately tracked), so I'm marking it closed.