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

Re: XML schema draft comments: pt.1 3.11.5 confused wording

From: Daniel Barclay <daniel@fgm.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 12:54:36 -0400
Message-ID: <40D07B4C.3010403@fgm.com>
To: Daniel Barclay <daniel@fgm.com>
Cc: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org

Daniel Barclay wrote:

> Regarding the draft at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PER-xmlschema-1-20040318/:
> 
> Section 3.11.5 says:
> 
>   ...
>   A ·node table· with one entry for every ·key-sequence·
>   (call it k) and node (call it n) such that one of the
>   following must be true:  ...
> 
> That should probably say "... such that one of the following is
> true..."
> 
> (Saying "such that some condition _must_ _be_ true" specifies
> something different (e.g., that things are such that some
> other, unspecified rule applies and requires that condition to
> be true).)
> 
> 
> ...

Also, section 3.15.3 has a multiply nested instance of the same
problem [emphasizing underlines are added]:

   The appropriate case among the following _must_ be true:
   1 If its ·normalized value· is prefixed, then all of the
     following _must_ be true:
     1.1 There _must_ be a namespace in the [in-scope namespaces]
         whose [prefix] matches the prefix.
     1.2 its ·namespace name· _is_ the [namespace name] of that
         namespace.
     1.3 Its ·local name· _is_ the portion of its ·normalized value·
         after the colon (':').
   2 otherwise (its ·normalized value· is unprefixed) all of the
     following _must_ be true:
     2.1 its ·local name· _is_ its ·normalized value·.
     2.2 The appropriate case among the following _must be true:
         2.2.1 If there is a namespace in the [in-scope namespaces]
               whose [prefix] has no value, then its ·namespace name·
               _is_ the [namespace name] of that namespace.
         2.2.2 otherwise its ·namespace name· _is_ ·absent·.

I think the initial "the appropriate case...must be true" needs
to not say that the case is true but somehow say that the rule
for the appropriate case applies.

(In fact, the introductory sentence doesn't seem to be needed
grammatically or logically.  One can say simply "If condition 1
is true, then thing 1 must be true; otherwise, if condition 2
applies, then thing 2 must be true."  Since an introductory
sentence apparently is needed so the "if..." and "otherwise..."
can be numbered, it should probably be worded in a way that
doesn't change the overall logic (saying that something
must be required to be true instead of just saying that it
must be true).)

Additionally, item 2.2 with a "must" doesn't seem right given
that its sibling 2.1 says "is."




Daniel
Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2004 12:55:11 UTC

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