W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > April to June 2004

XML schema draft comments: pt.1 3.10.4 mustFind not a decl., not defined; improve wording pattern

From: Daniel Barclay <daniel@fgm.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 10:45:18 -0400
Message-ID: <40D05CFE.7090206@fgm.com>
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org

Regarding the draft at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PER-xmlschema-1-20040318/:

Section 3.10.4 says [single quotes denote italics]:

   2 If {process contents} is strict, then the item's
     ·context-determined declaration· is 'mustFind'.

However, the definition of "context-determined declaration" is:

   [Definition:]  During ·validation·, associations between
   element and attribute information items among the
   [children] and [attributes] on the one hand, and element
   and attribute declarations on the other, are established
   as a side-effect. Such declarations are called the
   context-determined declarations.

The value/literal/whatever "mustFind" does not seem to be
a declaration, so can an item's ·context-determined declaration·
really be "mustFind"?

Assuming that "mustFind" is a temporary value that will be
replaced by a valid declaration, the specification's wording
should allow for the somehow (perhaps by saying that it functions
as declaration, or that there's some context-determined declaration
slot that holds a context-determined declaration or the value
"mustFind").


Actually, what "mustFind" is does not seem to be defined.  It is
written in italics, but section 1.3 (documentation conventions)
doesn't say what italics mean.

Assuming that "mustFind" and most things written in italtics are
values, the specification should say that they are values.

A better change would be to use the form "the value xxx" for
references to values.  Extending that to other types of things
as follows:
    - "the value xxx" (retaining italics would be fine)
    - "the {xyz} property"
    - "the <attribute> element"
    - "the [children] information item" (well, okay, this one
      gets pretty wordy)
would make the wording much clearer.

(Yes, it would be a bit bulkier, but the reader would have all
the information already in words, and not have to mentally
translate the (not-standard-English) symbology to words every
time.

Consider the possibilities for confusion in "the <attribute>
is..." vs. the clarity of "the <attribute> element is ..."
and how little meaning is lost if the extra punctuation is
ignored (as when reading out loud): "the attribute element
is ...")



(Also, in the definition of context-determined declaration,
"such associated declarations" might be clearer than "such
declarations.")


Daniel
Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2004 10:58:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:15:34 UTC