Re: Algorithm for merging the pattern facets in a base simpleType with a subtype? (UNCLASSIFIED)
"Cheney, Edward A SSG RES USAR USARC" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.xml.schema.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED >> Therefore, the patterns that apply to "B" are just the patterns >> contained in "B". Effectively the patterns in "A" may be ignored. Do >> you agree? > > No, sorry, there is nothing in the spec to justify that conclusion. This logic is only valid in the narrow situation where "B" contains a pattern that directly and identically conflicts with a pattern from "A". In that case inheritance is blocked by instantiation. Otherwise, if there is a conflict of patterns and if that conflict is not absolute the result is typically a union that applies the differences from inheritance as a remainder for attachment to the portion of the pattern conflicted in "B". This sounds simple, except that I did not define the terms "difference" or "conflict". I am not sure of a situation where the computed definition of a single pattern instance can become so complex that the conflict of it versus a pattern result from inheritance could become ambiguous. If such a narrow condition is permissible I would not know the correct answer. I suspect the occurrence, if any, of such complexity would occur more often in the wild as a result of extending the pattern facet to allow multiple regular expressions in a given facet. If this is even a valid case it begs the question of what are the results in such situations when the hierarchical inheritance is vast in depth allowing for this condition to be inherited onto a separate instance of conflict. Austin Cheney, CISSP http://prettydiff.com/ Classification: UNCLASSIFIED