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 2838 - RQ-126 Restricting away canonical forms (restrict-can-forms)
Summary: RQ-126 Restricting away canonical forms (restrict-can-forms)
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Datatypes: XSD Part 2 (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
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: resolved
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-02-11 01:42 UTC by C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Modified: 2008-03-08 15:03 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2006-02-11 01:42:13 UTC
This issue was originally reported by Dave Peterson.

Pattern derivations remove lexical representations directly from the
lexical space.  If a lexical representation is not unique then it is
possible with a pattern to remove the canonical representation without
removing all representations, thereby leaving the value in the value
space but without a canonical representation.  This is related to
RQ-129 (#eliminate-canonical).

See (member-only link)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2002Nov/0186.html

This item was discussed in the meeting of 2003-11-21
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2003Nov/0050.html).
Paul Biron to produce phase-1 proposal.

This item was discussed, and phase-1 agreement was reached, in the
meeting of 2004-03-19
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2004Mar/0072.html).

Proposal:

Dave Peterson and subsequent thread (member-only links)
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2002Nov/0186.html)

Since it's not feasible to prevent the use of patterns in such a way as
to eliminate canonical representations, the only practicable resolution to
this issue is to add a warning to the spec noting that this can happen 
and that it may in some circumstances be undesirable.  Such notes have been
added to section 2.1 (Datatype) and just after the definition of the 
pattern facet.  With those notes, this requirement has been discharged.