6161 2008-10-15 12:21:23 +0000 3.10.6.2 Wildcard Subset 2009-03-16 14:33:37 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Structures: XSD Part 1 1.1 only PC Windows NT CLOSED FIXED editorial, resolved P2 normal --- 1 mike cmsmcq David_E3 www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 22175 0 mike 2008-10-15 12:21:23 +0000 I'm struggling to understand the structure of this contraint. It starts with a definition "sub is a wildcard subset of super if and only if one of the following is true..." and then continues: "And all of the following must be true..." Is this part of the definition? (if so, why "must"?) I would expect the structure here to be ... all of the following are true: 1 One of the following is true: 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2 Each QName member of super.{disallowed names} is not allowed by sub.. 3 If super.{disallowed names} contains defined, then... 4 If super.{disallowed names} contains sibling, then... (Note also the use of apostrophe rather than dot in the last clause) 22195 1 David_E3 2008-10-17 16:14:30 +0000 The WG decided that the editors need to make sure that ands and ors are unambiguous, and that "must" should be changed to "are". 24263 2 sandygao 2009-03-16 14:23:54 +0000 During its 2009-03-13 telecon, the schema WG adopted a proposal to address this issue. The proposal can be found at (member-only): http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.omni.20090313.html This implements the WG decision recorded in comment #1, by changing "must" to "are". Another change made (not shown in the above proposal) was to replace clause 3 "... super's {disallowed names} ..." with "... super.{disallowed names} ...", as suggested in the bug report. With these changes, the WG believes that the issue raised in this bug report is fully addressed. I'm marking this RESOLVED accordingly. Michael, as the persons who opened and reopened this issue, if you would indicate your concurrence with or dissent from the WG's disposition of the comment by closing or reopening the issue, we'll be grateful. If we don't hear from you in the next two weeks, we'll assume that silence implies consent.