W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > October to December 2006

[Bug 3891] 3.14.6 wording - missing/unclear antecedent

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:34:39 +0000
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1GeZ9r-0000N4-VT@wiggum.w3.org>


           Summary: 3.14.6  wording - missing/unclear antecedent
           Product: XML Schema
           Version: 1.0/1.1 both
          Platform: All
               URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028/#cos-
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Structures: XSD Part 1
        AssignedTo: cmsmcq@w3.org
        ReportedBy: dsb@smart.net
         QAContact: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org

Regarding _XML_Schema_Part_1:_Structures_Second_Edition at

In section 3.14.6, the "Schema Component Constraint: Type Derivation OK
(Simple)" rule at

  Schema Component Constraint: Type Derivation OK (Simple)
    For a simple type definition ... to be validly derived from a type
    definition ... given a subset ... one of the following must be true:
    1 They are the same type definition.
    2 All of the following must be true:
      2.1 'restriction' is not in the subset, or in the {final} of its own
          {base type definition} ...

The wording makes it quite unclear which component's {final} property is
being referred to.

In particular, the word "its" has no (clear) antecedent.

(Grammatically, the closest candidates are "'restriction'" (the subject
of the sentence) and "the subset" (the most recent noun in the previous
phrase), but clearly neither of those interpretations is valid.

Going to the previous sentence:  The plural "they" does not seem to be
the intended antecedent of the singular "its," and "the same definition"
can't be because it's a mutually exclusive case to start with.

The first sentence has three main noun phrases, so none is clearly the

It seems that the intended reference is "the simple type definition."

Since that simple type definition has already been named D, clause 2.1
should probably read:

      2.1 'restriction' is not in the subset, or in the {final} of
          D's {base type definition} ...
Received on Monday, 30 October 2006 15:34:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:50:05 UTC