This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Regarding _XML_Schema_Part_1:_Structures_Second_Edition at http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028/: In section 3.14.6, the "Schema Component Constraint: Type Derivation OK (Simple)" rule at http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028/#cos-st-derived-ok says: Schema Component Constraint: Type Derivation OK (Simple) For a simple type definition ... to be validly derived from a type definition ... given a subset ... one of the following must be true: 1 They are the same type definition. 2 All of the following must be true: 2.1 'restriction' is not in the subset, or in the {final} of its own {base type definition} ... ... The wording makes it quite unclear which component's {final} property is being referred to. In particular, the word "its" has no (clear) antecedent. (Grammatically, the closest candidates are "'restriction'" (the subject of the sentence) and "the subset" (the most recent noun in the previous phrase), but clearly neither of those interpretations is valid. Going to the previous sentence: The plural "they" does not seem to be the intended antecedent of the singular "its," and "the same definition" can't be because it's a mutually exclusive case to start with. The first sentence has three main noun phrases, so none is clearly the antecendent.) It seems that the intended reference is "the simple type definition." Since that simple type definition has already been named D, clause 2.1 should probably read: 2.1 'restriction' is not in the subset, or in the {final} of D's {base type definition} ...
In an effort to make better use of Bugzilla, we are going to use the 'severity' field to classify issues by perceived difficulty. This bug is getting severity=minor to reflect the existing whiteboard note 'easy'.
A wording proposal including changes for this issue went to the WG on 7 February 2008: http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.consent.200801.html#composition (member-only link).
The XML Schema Working Group today accepted the proposal mentioned in comment #2, which is intended to resolve this issue by rephrasing the rule as suggested. For 2.1 restriction is not in the subset, or in the {final} of its own {base type definition}; the text now reads 2.1 restriction is not in the subset, or in the {final} of D's {base type definition}; With this change, the WG believes we have resolved this issue fully for XSD 1.1. Accordingly, I am going to - change the status of this issue (3891) to RESOLVED - FIXED - clone this issue to track the corresponding problem in 1.0 - set the status of that new issue accordingly, and add Daniel Barclay to the CC list for the new issue, as the originator of this issue Daniel Barclay, as the originator of this comment, you should receive from Bugzilla an email notification of this decision. Please accept our thanks for catching this ambiguity. Please let us know if you agree with this resolution of your issue, by adding a comment to the issue record and changing the Status of the issue to Closed. Or, if you do not agree with this resolution, please add a comment explaining why. If you wish to appeal the WG's decision to the Director, then also change the Status of the record to Reopened. If you wish to record your dissent, but do not wish to appeal the decision to the Director, then change the Status of the record to Closed. If we do not hear from you in the next two weeks, we will assume you agree with the WG decision.
> Please let us know if you agree with this resolution of your issue, by > adding a comment to the issue record and changing the Status of the > issue to Closed. Yes, that resolution seems to address the problem. (Closing the problem report.)