4034 2006-12-04 16:47:20 +0000 don't keep superseded facets 2007-03-26 15:05:21 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Structures: XSD Part 1 1.1 only All All CLOSED FIXED resolved P2 normal --- 2246 1 davep cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 13073 0 davep 2006-12-04 16:47:20 +0000 From Structures, 3.15.6, Schema Component Constraint: Simple Type Restriction (Facets): 3 The facets of R [the restriction] [must] ·constitute a restriction· of the {facets} of B [the base] with respect to S [a set of new facets]. Within the definition of "constitute a restriction", the governing clause is: 2 Every facet in B is in R unless it is of the same kind as some facet in S. If we interpret "unless" to mean that the facet in B is prohibited if is is of the same kind as some facet in S, then reading back into the Constraint we find that the constraint precludes a facet of B from being also a facet of R if there is a facet of the same kind in S. This needs to be made clear; "unless" can also be interpreted as making no statement about whether a facet B is in R if it is of the same kind as some facet in S. Recommend "unless it is of the same kind as some facet in S" be changed to read "if and only if it is not of the same kind as some facet in S". Since this is what is needed to resolve Datatypes bug 2246, and 2246 blocks Structures bug 2781, this change might impact the resolution of 2781. 14092 1 cmsmcq 2007-02-24 02:32:53 +0000 At today's call, the WG accepted a wording proposal which recasts clause 2 of the definition of 'constitutes a restriction'. The new text is: 2 Every facet in B is in R, unless it is of the same kind as some facet in S, in which case it is not included in R. This is not the wording proposed by the originator, but it does seem to accomplish the same clarification. So I'm marking this as resolved. Dave, as originator please confirm your acceptance of the disposition by changing the status to CLOSED. If we don't hear from you in two weeks, I'll close it myself.