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 2820 - RQ-17 Redo restriction rules (restrictn-rules)
Summary: RQ-17 Redo restriction rules (restrictn-rules)
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Structures: XSD Part 1 (show other bugs)
Version: 1.1 only
Hardware: Other All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
Whiteboard: important, work, restriction cluster
Keywords: resolved
Depends on:
Reported: 2006-02-10 22:14 UTC by C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Modified: 2007-02-28 03:13 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Description C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2006-02-10 22:14:57 UTC
This issue was originally reported by Matthew Fuchs.

Remove the current rules on derivation by restriction
Comment 1 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2006-02-10 22:20:10 UTC
[Sorry, error in first submission.]

This issue was originally reported by Matthew Fuchs.

Remove the current rules on derivation by restriction; define legal
restrictions in terms of their effect on the language, not in terms of
a structural relationship between the base type and the derived type.

See (member-only link)

Input from Straw Poll O-14

Interacts with several other requirements; proposals for this
requirement also cover or affect RQ-11 (pointless-occs), RQ-12
(choice-vs-choice), RQ-15 (id-restriction), and RQ-146

Confirmed as Requirement at 2002-08-02 F2F. We discussed reclassifying
it and decided not to.

This item was discussed in the meetings of 2003-11-04
(not an exhaustive list).

Non-status-quo wording for this issue was integrated into the published
Working Draft of February 2005.

At the ftf of May 2005, the editors were instructed to prepare a revised
proposal for this issue.
Comment 2 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2006-03-22 21:11:08 UTC
The revised wording requested in North Carolina at the ftf of May 2005
was sent to the WG 21 March 2006; it's at
(member-only link).

In substance, the proposal is a subset of the old RQ-17 proposal of
February 2005, which has been included in subsequent public drafts,
marked as non-status-quo text.
Comment 3 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2007-02-28 03:13:34 UTC
The proposal mentioned in comment #2 was adopted by the WG in April 2006.
Follow-on proposals were considered and adopted at the face to face meeting
in San Jose Oct/Nov 2006 and on 8 December 2006.  No work is outstanding
on this issue (beyond an editorial issue separately tracked), so I'm marking it