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 2056 - R-067: A question about type derivation and anonymous types
Summary: R-067: A question about type derivation and anonymous types
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Structures: XSD Part 1 (show other bugs)
Version: 1.0 only
Hardware: All All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Henry S. Thompson
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-09-09 02:32 UTC by Sandy Gao
Modified: 2009-04-21 19:24 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Sandy Gao 2005-09-09 02:32:00 UTC
Schema Component Constraint: Type Derivation OK (Simple) lists conditions under 
which a simple type D is considered to be validly derived from another simple 
type B. The first condition is:

"1 They are the same type definition."

Is possible for 2 anonymous simple type definitions to be considered "the same 
type definition"?

See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2001Jun/0010.html
Comment 1 Sandy Gao 2005-09-09 02:32:41 UTC
Henry's response: No, but the REC isn't completely clear about this. Clause 1 
above could probably usefully be changed to read "They are the same named type 
definition". See:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2001Jun/0012.html 

Further email and thoughts from Henry:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2001Nov/0037.html 

Status 2002/01: Henry to propose a resolution/text.

Status 2002/02: Proposed resolution and follow-on email from Henry: 

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2002Feb/0013.html

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2002Feb/0027.html
Comment 2 Sandy Gao 2005-09-09 02:33:20 UTC
Resolved at the Feb. f2f. Henry Thompson to draft erratum reflecting his 
original proposal (see above). And, the issue of identity and anonymous types 
should be considered for 1.1.

Also, an example in the Primer needs to be modified.

Primer erratum E0-21 added.

Proposed text at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2002Oct/att-0221/00-R-
67etc.html 

Discussed and approved at Oct. 24 telecon 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2002Oct/0248.html 

Structures erratum E1-17 added