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 2195 - R-202: How many components are there for complextype extensions?
Summary: R-202: How many components are there for complextype extensions?
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Structures: XSD Part 1 (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL:
Whiteboard: clarification cluster (need to recove...
Keywords: resolved
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-09-14 19:02 UTC by Sandy Gao
Modified: 2009-04-21 19:21 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Sandy Gao 2005-09-14 19:02:43 UTC
In discussions of SCDs, various questions regarding the component model 
surfaced such as: how many components are there for particles inherited by 
extensions of a complextype?
Comment 1 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2006-09-19 19:40:28 UTC
See also bug 2842, which appears to be a duplicate of this one.
Comment 2 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2006-12-22 17:23:24 UTC
In our call of 22 December 2006, the Working Group discussed this question
and concluded that the correct answer is "no more than necessary" -- i.e.
the content model particle of the base type is not copied, but reused, in
the content model of the extension.

The editors believe that this is already a consequence of the normative
prose in the spec.  The editors and WG members should keep an eye open
for text that appears to contradict that rule, and for a good location to
add a clarifying note about the facts of the case.

The WG agreed to resolve this 
Comment 3 David Ezell 2007-10-30 19:45:19 UTC
Bug was previously closed, but requires clarification, so it is being reopened.

ACTION 2006-12-22.5: editors to find a good place for a note clarifying the status quo portions addressed in 2195.
Comment 4 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2008-02-05 02:31:47 UTC
A wording proposal for this issue (among others) was sent to the XML
Schema WG on 4 February 2008.

http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.consent.200802.html (member-only link)

For some issues, the proposal is effectively to make no change;
see the Status section of the proposal for the specifics.
Comment 5 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2008-02-08 23:24:45 UTC
During its telcon today, the XML Schema WG accepted the 'Structures
Omnibus 2' proposal, which includes changes intended to resolve this
issue.  (Or, for some issues, contains the editors' proposal that the
issue should be closed without further changes.)
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.consent.200801.html (member-only link)

Accordingly, I'm marking the issue resolved.

The originator of this issue (or in some cases the individual,
acting on behalf of a group, who filed the comment) should receive 
an email notification of this change.

Please examine the changes and 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.