5518 2008-03-04 16:39:26 +0000 Why are rules allowed on both element declaration and type definitions 2008-05-14 04:46:47 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified SML Core LC PC Windows NT RESOLVED INVALID externalComments, resolved, reviewerSatisfied P2 normal --- 1 pratul.dublish cmsmcq ht public-sml oldest_to_newest 19266 0 pratul.dublish 2008-03-04 16:39:26 +0000 Comment#1 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2008Mar/0001.html It seems unwise to go beyond what XML Schema 1.1 will support in the way of assertions: is allowing 'rules' as part of both element declarations and type definitions really necessary? 19467 1 pratul.dublish 2008-03-13 22:58:40 +0000 SML allows Schematron constraints (aka rules) to be specified on both element declarations and type definitions to support different schema design patterns (see http://www.xfront.com/GlobalVersusLocal.html ). SML's support for rules on element declaration is purely additive to XML Schema 1.1 assertions, so there would be no conflict if a future version of SML was dependent on Schema 1.1. SML 1.1 has no depdendency on Schema 1.1 19634 2 kumarp 2008-03-27 19:31:58 +0000 resolution in conf call on 3/27: The SML working group believes that there is good reason for allowing assertions on both elements and types. Our experience is that some vocabulary designers work in a type-centered way, some in an element-centered way, and many in ways spread out along the scale. Restriction of functionality to types, and not allowing it on elements, favors one style of vocabulary design over the others; we are not certain, however, that type-centered design is the only style that needs to be supported. I'm changing its status accordingly. The change in status should cause email to be sent to the originator of this issue, to whom the following request is addressed. Please review the current LC text and let us know if you agree with this resolution of your issue, by adding a comment to the issue record. Or, if you do not agree with this resolution, please add a comment explaining why. If we do not hear from you in the next two weeks, we will assume you agree with the WG decision. 19882 3 ht 2008-04-18 13:54:29 +0000 I think this is a mistake, but will not push it further