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

Re: Resolution of CR-51

From: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:27:24 -0500
To: "David E. Cleary" <davec@progress.com>
Cc: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFC2ED154B.9B8C96DF-ON852569DD.007C45C8@lotus.com>
Thank you for the clarification.  This proposed resolution looks fine to 
me.  As far as I am concerned, we can mark this issue as completely 
closed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------------







"David E. Cleary" <davec@progress.com>
01/23/01 03:33 PM

 
        To:     <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
        cc:     <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
        Subject:        Resolution of CR-51


Dear Noah,

The W3C XML Schema Working Group has spent the last several weeks
working through the comments received from the public on the
Candidate Recommendation (CR) of the XML Schema specification. We
thank you for the comments you made on our specification during
our CR comment period, and want to make sure you know that all
comments received during the CR comment period have been recorded
in our CR issues list (http://www.w3.org/2000/12/xmlschema-crcomments.html).

You raised the point registered as issue CR-51:
localidref: Does IDREF validation contradict our validation story?

In general, validation of an element involves validation of the subtree
rooted at that element, but can be performed without reference to its
context. Thus, the spec manages almost completely to avoid any appeal to 
the
notion of 'document' in defining validation.

The rules for type IDREF, however, do make such an appeal. Do those rules
mean that we should revise our description of how validation is perfomed?

Similar arguments apply to keys and keyrefs. Do they mean that validation 
of
subtrees below the scope of the key constraint is (a) impossible, (b)
partial (omitting key and keyref constraint checking), (c) legal but
requires the processor to climb the tree until it hits the scoping 
element,
(d) other?

The Schema WG has discussed the issue you have raised and has decided 
there
does need to be better clarification in the specification. The editors 
have
agreed to address this in the XML Schema Proposed Recommendation.

It would be helpful to us to know whether you are satisfied with the
decision taken by the WG on this issue, or wish your dissent from the
WG's decision to be recorded for consideration by the Director of
the W3C.

Regards

David Cleary
XML Schema Working Group
Received on Tuesday, 23 January 2001 17:38:20 GMT

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