5468 2008-02-08 22:40:49 +0000 3.14.6 wording - missing/unclear antecedent 2008-02-08 22:41:27 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Structures: XSD Part 1 1.0 only All All NEW http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028/#cos-st-derived-ok P4 minor --- 3891 1 cmsmcq cmsmcq dsb www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 18922 0 cmsmcq 2008-02-08 22:40:49 +0000 +++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #3891, to enable the issue to be tracked separately in XSD 1.0 and XSD 1.1 +++ Regarding _XML_Schema_Part_1:_Structures_Second_Edition at http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028/: In section 3.14.6, the "Schema Component Constraint: Type Derivation OK (Simple)" rule at http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028/#cos-st-derived-ok says: Schema Component Constraint: Type Derivation OK (Simple) For a simple type definition ... to be validly derived from a type definition ... given a subset ... one of the following must be true: 1 They are the same type definition. 2 All of the following must be true: 2.1 'restriction' is not in the subset, or in the {final} of its own {base type definition} ... ... The wording makes it quite unclear which component's {final} property is being referred to. In particular, the word "its" has no (clear) antecedent. (Grammatically, the closest candidates are "'restriction'" (the subject of the sentence) and "the subset" (the most recent noun in the previous phrase), but clearly neither of those interpretations is valid. Going to the previous sentence: The plural "they" does not seem to be the intended antecedent of the singular "its," and "the same definition" can't be because it's a mutually exclusive case to start with. The first sentence has three main noun phrases, so none is clearly the antecendent.) It seems that the intended reference is "the simple type definition." Since that simple type definition has already been named D, clause 2.1 should probably read: 2.1 'restriction' is not in the subset, or in the {final} of D's {base type definition} ...