This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 12131 - Assert vs Assertion
Summary: Assert vs Assertion
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Structures: XSD Part 1 (show other bugs)
Version: 1.1 only
Hardware: PC Windows NT
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: David Ezell
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: resolved
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2011-02-18 23:09 UTC by Michael Kay
Modified: 2011-03-24 08:07 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description Michael Kay 2011-02-18 23:09:41 UTC
In Part 1 3.16.3 clause 1 we read:

1 With the exception of <enumeration>, <pattern>, and <assert>, the [children] of <restriction> do not contain more than one element information item with the same name.

Here <assert> should be <assertion>.
Comment 1 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2011-03-04 23:57:31 UTC
Agreed.  The change needs to be made both in the normative prose and in the accompanying note.

I think nothing else needs to change, so I'm tentatively marking this 'needs review'.  More explicitly, the proposal is to make clause 1 of Schema Representation Constraint: Simple Type Definition Representation OK read:

    1 No two elements among the [children] of <restriction> have the
      same expanded name in the Schema (xs) namespace, unless that
      expanded name is one of xs:enumeration, xs:pattern, or
      xs:assertion.

         Note: That is, most of the facets for simple types defined
            by this specification are forbidden to occur more than
            once. But <enumeration>, <pattern>, and <assertion> may
            occur multiple times, and facets defined in other
            namespaces and made available as extensions to this
            specification may occur multiple times.
Comment 2 David Ezell 2011-03-18 16:48:27 UTC
RESOLVED: adopt the change.
Comment 3 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2011-03-23 19:42:56 UTC
The decision reported in comment 2 has been implemented and the change integrated into the status-quo document.

Michael, would you do the honors, please?