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

confusing table entries in XML Primer table

From: Gignac Donald A CRBE <GignacDA@nswccd.navy.mil>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 14:38:15 -0400
Message-ID: <1F9F67162ADED3119F18009027A8F404C60419@crbeex03.dt.navy.mil>
To: "'www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org'" <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
Cc: "Garner F J (Joe) CRBE" <GarnerFJ@nswccd.navy.mil>, "Westbrook Evelyn L (Lori) CRBE" <WestbrookEL@nswccd.navy.mil>, Junod L J II CRBE <JunodLJ@nswccd.navy.mil>, Le Beau Raymond P CRBE<LeBeauRP@nswccd.navy.mil>
1. Table 3 "Restriction Examples" in section 4.4 "Deriving Complex Types by Restriction" in the XML Primer contains the confusing entries
	(0, 0) (0, 37) 
	(1, 8) (2, 9) (4, 7) (3, 3) 
	(1, 12) (3, unbounded) (6, 6) 
in the "Restriction" column. These examples  should be separated by commas as below
	(0, 0), (0, 37) 
	(1, 8), (2, 9), (4, 7), (3, 3) 
	(1, 12), (3, unbounded), (6, 6) 
2. The "Restriction" column should be retitled "Restrictions (delimited by commas)" similar to what was done in Table 2 "Simple Types Built In to XML Schema".
3. The last entry in the "Note" column
	cannot restrict minOccurs or maxOccurs
is confusing since the previous table rows apparently provide examples of "minOccurs" and "maxOccurs" restrictions. I suggest this entry be changed to
	cannot exclude required component (since restricted values would not be subset of base values)
for greater clarity.
Donald Gignac	"gignacda@nswccd.navy.mil"	301-227-3348
Received on Friday, 4 May 2001 14:39:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:12:50 GMT