W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sml@w3.org > February 2008

[Bug 5417] inconsistent lists of constructs where rules are supported

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:56:06 +0000
To: public-sml@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1JPjFe-00051g-HH@wiggum.w3.org>


------- Comment #2 from cmsmcq@w3.org  2008-02-14 18:56 -------
Sandy Gao and I took an action to prepare a proposal to resolve this;
we have not yet reached agreement on what to propose, but we have noted
a couple of points that should probably be considered by the WG.

1 The current phrasing in 6.3.1, which talks about sch:schema elements
being embedded in the {application information} of the {annotation}
property of a schema component, is designed to cover both the common case
where the schema component was created by reading a source declaration in
a schema document, and the other possible case ('born binary comnponents')
in which it was created by some other means.

But 6.3 is titled "Rules embedded in schema documents".

If the intent is that Schematron rules are only legal if a schema
document is used, then the wording in 6.3.1 can / should change.  
If (as seems more likely) the more general wording in 6.3.1 is the 
right thing, then the title of 6.3 should probably change.  Ditto 
for the title of 6.3.1.

2 Section 6.3.1 describes the embedding of sch:schema elements in
terms of XSD component properties; section 7 describes them in 
terms of schema document elements.  Is there is a reason for these two
not to be aligned? or should they both speak in terms of component
properties?  (Or in terms of elements in schema documents -- less
general, but in some ways simpler and more concise.)
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2008 18:56:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:56:09 UTC