Re: comments on Proposed Edited Recommendation for XML Schema Second Edition

On 24 Mar 2004, at 07:26 , Eric J. Schwarzenbach wrote:

> My comments relate to
>
> http://www.w3c.org/TR/2004/PER-xmlschema-1-20040318/#rcase-MapAndSum
>
> I'd like to request that
>
> rcase-MapAndSum.2 be rephrased to make it more readable. There are  
> a number of places in the these documents that suffer the same sort  
> of human-parseability problems but this sentence is particularly  
> egregious.

Thank you for your comment, and our apologies for the very slow  
response.

There is bad news and there is good news.  The bad news is that the  
Working
Group did not adopt the specific changes to the wording of the  
sentence in
question to make it clearer.  (Speaking for myself, I think your  
observations
were quite correct and your suggestions would have improved the sentence
a good deal, but I am not unhappy with the WG action, for reasons which
should become clear in the next paragraph.)

The good news is that the egregious clause in question, and the Schema
Component Constraint from which it came, have been eliminated entirely
from the recent Working Draft of XML Schema 1.1, as part of a larger  
change
to replace the rules for checking complex type restriction.  In 1.0,  
this is
done by means of various constraints on the construction of model  
groups;
in 1.1 these constructive constraints are replaced by the requirement  
that
anything locally valid against the restriction must also be locally  
valid
against the base type.

If you still have an interest in the issue you raised two years ago,  
please
examine the new working draft in the clear-text form

   http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-1/

or the diffs-since-1.0 or diffs-since-previous-WD forms

   http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xmlschema11-1-20060831/ 
structures.diff-1.0.html
   http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xmlschema11-1-20060831/ 
structures.diff-wd.html

and let us know if you agree with this resolution of your issue, for  
XML Schema
1.1. Or, if you do not agree with this resolution, please let us know  
why.

If you wish to appeal the WG's decision to the Director, then you can  
do that, too,
by saying that you wish to do so.  Some reviewers choose to record  
their dissent,
but do not wish to appeal the decision to the Director; that is also  
possible.

Since we do not expect to introduce the reworking of complex type
restriction in XML Schema 1.0 (it's rather large for an erratum),  
your issue
remains open with respect to XML Schema 1.0.  The Working Group is using
Bugzilla to track open issues, and the 1.1 version of this issue is now
bug 2242 in the W3C's public instance of Bugzilla, while the 1.0 version
is bug 3764:

   http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2242
   http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3764

You can communicate with the WG either by replying to this email or by
getting a Bugzilla logon and adding comments directly to the Bugzilla  
entries.

If we do not hear from you in the next month, we will assume you  
agree with the
WG decision, as regards XML Schema 1.1.

Thank you again, and best regards,

--C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
   staff contact, W3C XML Schema Working Group

Received on Monday, 25 September 2006 23:09:06 UTC