W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > April to June 2001

Re: comments for XML Schema 20010330

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 17 Apr 2001 05:58:35 +0100
To: Susan Lesch <lesch@w3.org>
Cc: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5bvgo4unpg.fsf@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Susan Lesch <lesch@w3.org> writes:

> The terminology or conformance sections could explain that:
>      The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
>      "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
>      [RFC2119].
> with RFC 2119 as a normative reference. If you don't want to use the
> RFC, then you could explain why not.

I've used the prose from XML 1.0 (2e) now for 'may' and 'must', and
included some qualifying remarks.  2119 really isn't appropriate in my 

> The glossary in Structures should be cut. Perhaps it is automatically
> generated and that would explain why some terms are never defined or
> definitions refer to text not present in the glossary. For example:
>      "base wildcard
>           let the base wildcard be defined as"

I'm working on improving the obviously silly ones, but have had positive
feedback that those working from printed versions that this section is 
useful warts and all -- do you really think it should come out?

  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
          W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team
     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
	    Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
		     URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2001 00:58:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:56 UTC