Re: {facets} property value, Schema 1.0 and 1.1

At 2:11 PM -0600 040921, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote:
>On Sun, 2004-09-19 at 20:59, Dave Peterson wrote:
>
>>  It appears that the definition of the {facets} property of the
>>  simple type definition schema component includes both the
>>  fundamental and constraining facets, according to the definition.
>>  OTOH, since the description talks about a possibly empty set of
>>  facets and there is also a {fundamental facets} property which is
>>  the set of fundamental facets, I suspect it was intended that the
>>  {facets} property only include constraining facets.
>
>Just to make sure I understand -- I think you are suggesting that the
>definition should change.  Is it as simple as changing the tableau in
>section 4.1.1 so that instead of reading
>
>   {facets} A possibly empty set of Facets (§2.4).
>
>it reads
>
>   {facets} A possibly empty set of constraining Facets (§2.4).
>
>? That seems harmless enough. Or would more be involved?

That is basically the change, although the reference will change as
well.  There are a few other places where the same change needs to
be made, where we talk about how to fill the {facets} set.

I think it's "harmless enough".  I suspect that most implementers
have actually implemented it that way.  But officially that's currently
an incorrect implementation.  If it has been implemented according
to the definition, said implementation would have to change.

Changing the component structure in any way is a hot-button for
some WG memebers.  This is a change to the component structure
as currently defined.  (But, I hope, not as currently implemented--
who knows?)
-- 
Dave Peterson
SGMLWorks!

davep@iit.edu