This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
In the "changes since": "All wildcard unions are now expressible, and wildcard union is used to combine multiple attribute wildcards, rather than wildcard intersection; this change resolves issue 6163 3.10.6.3 Attribute Wildcard Union." I cannot find anyplace where the use of wildcard union has replaced the use of wildcard intersection. I only see one place where wildcard union is used, which is 3.4.2.5, and the corresponding section in 1.0 also used union. If there is a rule where wildcard union has replaced wildcard intersection, it would be helpful to identify it. If the statement is not intended to imply that such a replacement has occurred, I suggest changing it to: "All wildcard unions are now expressible; this change resolves issue 6163 3.10.6.3 Attribute Wildcard Union."
My recollection (I haven't checked my facts) is that we considered a proposal that multiple attribute wildcards in a complex type should be combined by union rather than intersection (which would be much more logical), but decided against it on backwards compatibility grounds. We did however make the change to make all unions and intersections expressible. See bug #6163 for discussion of the issue.
From the telcon: editors to try to improve the text.
The diff markup in the spec and control files appears to confirm Michael Kay's memory: the spec has two changes related to bug 6163, one relating solely to wildcard unions and the other proposing to make attribute wildcards use union instead of intersection (and drop the definition of wildcard intersection). The latter is explicitly marked not-accepted, in the list of changes made at the ftf meeting of October 2008. So I will prepare a wording proposal that follows Kevin Braun's suggestion of deleting the words "and wildcard union is used to combine multiple attribute wildcards, rather than wildcard intersection".
Erroneously marked resolved (careless click); correcting that error now.
A wording proposal intended to resolve this issue (and two others) has been prepared by the editors and is now on the W3C server at http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.b7787.html (member-only link)
On the telcon
The wording proposal mentioned in comment 2 and adopted today (as noted in comment 3) has now been integrated into the status-quo drafts on the W3C server. Accordingly, I'm marking this issue 'resolved'. Bugzilla should send a notice of this status change to Kevin Braun, as the originator of the issue. It would be helpful if you could review the wording change (I believe you have member access to the W3C site; correct this misapprehansion if you don't), and indicate by closing (or reopening) the issue whether you are satisfied with the disposition of the comment or not. If we don't hear from you in the next two weeks, we'll assume you are happy. Thank you in any case for the comment.