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
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.