W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > July to September 2007

[Bug 4940] Explanation of terminology change regarding ur-type definition is a bit confusing

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 22:08:08 +0000
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1IJGAq-0003JX-MU@wiggum.w3.org>


           Summary: Explanation of terminology change regarding ur-type
                    definition is a bit confusing
           Product: XML Schema
           Version: 1.1 only
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows XP
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Structures: XSD Part 1
        AssignedTo: cmsmcq@w3.org
        ReportedBy: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
         QAContact: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org

The Aug 3 2007 structures draft (I.e. last call candidate) says:

[Definition:]  Except for a distinguished ·ur-type definition·, every ·type
definition· is, by construction, either a ·restriction· or an ·extension· of
some other type definition. The graph of these relationships forms a tree known
as the Type Definition Hierarchy.

and also

[Definition:]  A special complex type definition, (>>referred to in earlier
versions of this specification as 'the ur-type definition'<<) whose name is
anyType in the XSDL namespace, is present in each ·XSDL schema·. The definition
of anyType serves as default type definition for element declarations whose XML
representation does not specify one.

I seem to recall that we all agreed on this, but reading it now it seems
confusing and contradictory.  When we say that ur-type definition was a term
used in earlier versions of the specification we strongly imply that it's no
longer being used.  In fact, the term is defined immediately above, and is
widely used.  If what we mean is "the term ur-type definition used to be used
for two things, one of which is that complex type definition, but now it's only
used for one thing", then we should say that.  If that's not the case, then I
would think the text between the >>....<< should be deleted entirely.

FWIW:  while I think it would be desirable in principle to fix something like
this before going to last call, I don't think it's essential.  It's (at worst)
close enough to editorial that I'd be comfortable seeing it addressed most
anytime in the process.  Thank you.

Received on Thursday, 9 August 2007 22:08:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:50:06 UTC