6167 2008-10-16 11:11:29 +0000 Attribute Wildcard Intersection 2008-10-24 17:24:36 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Structures: XSD Part 1 1.1 only PC Windows NT RESOLVED FIXED resolved P2 normal --- 1 mike cmsmcq David_E3 www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 22183 0 mike 2008-10-16 11:11:29 +0000 In 3.10.6.4 Attribute Wildcard Intersection, the rules start: The {variety} and {namespaces} of O are consistent with O being the wildcard intersection of O1 and O2 if and only if 1 O, O1, and O2 have the same {variety} and {namespaces}. 2 Either O1 or O2 has {variety} ... It doesn't say whether "or" or "and" applies. I think it should start: The {variety} and {namespaces} of O are consistent with O being the wildcard intersection of O1 and O2 if and only if at least one of the following is true: 22217 1 mike 2008-10-20 16:38:56 +0000 Another issue in this same area (which I hope I can also class as editorial, but please check it carefully). Under Attribute Wildcard Intersection, second set of rules, rule 3, 3 The intersection of O1.{disallowed names} and O2.{disallowed names}. I think "intersection" should be "union". For if wildcard V allows all names in namespace N except A and B, while wildcard W allows all names in N except B and C, then the set of names allowed by both V and W is all names in N except A, B, and C. 22218 2 mike 2008-10-20 17:02:59 +0000 Further to comment #1. I'm not sure I got that right. Rules 1 and 2 already give you {A, C} in my example. they don't give you B, because B is not allowed by either wildcard. So rules 1, 2, 3 between them are more-or-less constructing the union, which is the effect I wanted. Moreover rule 3 isn't confined to QName members of {disallowedNames} - it brings in "defined" and "definedSibling" where appropriate. Though that fits oddly with rule 4. I can't really see why the whole set of 4 rules can't be replaced by "the union of O1.{disallowedName} and O2.{disallowedNames} retaining only those QNames whose URI is allowed by both O1 and O2 as defined in Wildcard allows Namespace Name (§3.10.4.3)" - which seems to me a lot clearer. And frankly, I don't see the need for the "The {disallowed names} property of O is consistent with O being the wildcard intersection of O1 and O2" style either - it just seems a longwinded way of saying "O.{disallowedQNames} is the union of O1.{disallowedName} and O2.{disallowedNames}, retaining only those QNames whose URI is allowed by both O1 and O2 as defined in Wildcard allows Namespace Name (§3.10.4.3)" 22250 3 sandygao 2008-10-24 17:24:36 +0000 On 2008-10-24, the working group adopted a proposal to address this issue by - Adding "one or more of the following is true" after "if and only if" - Simplifyings rules around intersecting {disallowed names}: 1 QName members of O1.{disallowed names} whose namespace names are allowed by O2, as defined in Wildcard allows Namespace Name (§3.10.4.3). 2 QName members of O2.{disallowed names} whose namespace names are allowed by O1. 3 The keyword defined if it is a member of either {disallowed names}. The proposal (along with changes for other bugs) can be found at (member-only): http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.omni0810.html