W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > October to December 2000

minor typos in CR-xmlschema-1-20001024

From: Susan Lesch <lesch@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 16:55:36 -0800
Message-Id: <p05010402b6718bdd4b32@[204.210.33.45]>
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Here are a few suggestions for your XML Schema Structures [1]
Candidate Recommendation, to use as you see fit. (It may be premature
to point out typos.)

Either use and give a reference to RFC 2119, or explain why not.
For example, in 4.3.4, last list, "1.1 The corresponding attribute
group definition, if any, must satisfy the conditions set out in
Attribute Group Definition Constraints (5.4)." can the RFC define
"must" for you?

Each table could have cellpadding="5".

As you may be aware, these Glossary entries have incomplete definitions:
actual type definition
constitute a restriction
context-dependent declarations
emptiable
explicit content
explicit members
fully conforming
namespace URI
overlap
strictly assessed (two entries)
valid
valid extension (two entries)
valid restriction (three entries)

First person pronouns are evidently hard to translate (see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-international/2000AprJun/0058.html).
Eliminating "we" will cut a few bytes in this example (from 3. par. 5):
     [Definition:]  when we refer to the initial value of some
     attribute information item, we mean by this the value of
     the [normalized value] property of that item. Similarly,
     when we refer to the initial value of an element
     information item, we mean the string composed of, in
     order, the [character code] of each character information
     item in the [children] of that element information item.
becomes:
     [Definition:]  the initial value of some attribute information
     item is the value of the [normalized value] property of that
     item. Similarly, the initial value of an element information
     item is the string composed of, in order, the [character code]
     of each character information item in the [children] of that
     element information item.

I didn't list corrections for editors' notes or Appendix J. From here
on, a section number is followed by a quote and then a suggestion.

Abstract
XML Namespace facility
XML namespace facility

Status of this document
Groupconsiders
Group considers

Introduction, par. 2
XML schema can be lowercase unless referring to
the title of this spec (XML Schema).

2.1 last par. and E assessment
the work assessment
the word assessment

2.4 par. 5
(6.3.2). .
(6.3.2).

3 par. 3
present, optional
present; optional

taken to have absent
taken to be absent

3. par. 8
linefeed
line feed
[see http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0000.pdf]

3. last par.
idealisation
idealization

4. list item 1
nothing in corresponding schema component
nothing in the corresponding schema component [not sure there]

4.3.8 last example
inter-alia
<i>inter alia</i>

5.10 Constraint on Schemas: Particle Valid (Restriction)
Is the table at the end of this clause nested one level too deep?

5.10 Constraint on Schemas: Particle Restriction OK (Elt:Elt -- NameAndTypeOK)
1.3 either B's declaration's {value constraint} absent
1.3 either B's declaration's {value constraint} is absent

5.11 Constraint on Schemas: Derivation Valid (Restriction, Complex)
Is the clause after 1.5 meant to start at "1.5"?

5.12 Constraint on Schemas: Derivation Valid (Restriction, Simple)
{facets}there
{facets} there

6.2.1 par. 6 and 6.2.2 par. 10 and 6.2.3 par. 7
(that is {type definitions} {attribute declarations},
(that is {type definitions}, {attribute declarations},

6.3.2 par. 3
Processors on the Web are free to undertaking assessment
Processors on the Web are free to undertake assessment

specialised
specialized

6.3.2 2nd note
NS URIs
namespace URIs

6.3.2 par. above example
stylesheet
style sheet

7.2 note
none-the-less
nonetheless

A. first annotation
&amp;lt;documentation&gt;
&amp;lt;schema&amp;gt;

A. annotated
&amp;lt;schema&amp;gt;
&lt;schema&gt:

A. redefinable
&amp;lt;redefine&gt;
&lt;redefine&gt;

A. complexTypeModel
    &amp;lt;complexContent&gt;
    &amp;lt;restriction base="anyType"&gt;
    ...
    &amp;lt;/restriction&gt;
    &amp;lt;/complexContent&gt;&lt;/documentation&gt;
becomes:
    &lt;complexContent&gt;
    &lt;restriction base="anyType"&gt;
    ...
    &lt;/restriction&gt;
    &lt;/complexContent&gt;&lt;/documentation&gt;

A. element
toplevel
top level

B. XML Schema Requirements, H. DCD, H. DDML, H. SOX, and H. XML-Data
W3C
W3C Note

B. XML, XML-Namespaces, and XPath
W3C
W3C Recommendation

B. XML-Infoset
XML Information Set (public WD), John Cowan, ed., W3C,
XML Information Set, John Cowan and Richard Tobin, eds., W3C Working Draft,

E. item type definition
I didn't understand why this is another meaning of local type definition.

E.
Validition Rules
Validation Rules

G.
Determinise
Determinize, or maybe better, Determine

I.
Hewlett Packard
Hewlett-Packard [twice]

ArborText
Arbortext

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-xmlschema-1-20001024/

Best wishes for your project,

-- 
Susan Lesch - mailto:lesch@w3.org  tel:+1.858.483.4819
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) - http://www.w3.org/
Received on Thursday, 28 December 2000 19:56:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:12:49 GMT