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

[Bug 3237] Relationship to programming language types

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 04:08:23 +0000
CC:
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1IYZoV-0006iR-Il@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3237


cmsmcq@w3.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |needsPublication




------- Comment #1 from cmsmcq@w3.org  2007-09-21 04:08 -------
Proposal: delete the three notes in question.  For the record, I mean:

1) the note at the end of 2.4.1.3 Union datatypes which reads

    Note: A datatype which is ·atomic· in this specification need 
    not be an "atomic" datatype in any programming language used 
    to implement this specification.  Likewise, a datatype which 
    is a ·list· in this specification need not be a "list" 
    datatype in any programming language used to implement 
    this specification. Furthermore, a datatype which is a 
    ·union· in this specification need not be a "union" datatype 
    in any programming language used to implement this specification.

2) the note at the end of 2.4.2 Special vs. Primitive vs. Ordinary
Datatypes which reads:

    Note: A datatype which is ·primitive· in this specification 
    need not be a "primitive" datatype in any programming 
    language used to implement this specification.  Likewise, 
    a datatype which is ·constructed· in this specification 
    from some other datatype need not be a "derived" datatype 
    in any programming language used to implement this specification. 

3) the note at the end of 2.4.4 Built-in vs. User-Defined Datatypes
which reads

    Note: A datatype which is ·built-in· in this specification 
    need not be a built-in datatype in any programming language 
    used to implement this specification.  Likewise, a datatype 
    which is ·user-defined· in this specification need not be 
    a user-defined datatype in any programming language used 
    to implement this specification.

The point these notes are trying to make is in fact a simple and obvious
one, although it is not hard to find, even among W3C working groups, smart 
programmers who uncritically assume a particular mapping between the
formulations of a specification and the data structures or APIs the
programmers will use.  (Arguments over whether to refer to
the in-scope namespaces or the namespace attributes property of the
infoset, for example, routinely make the kind of mistake warned against
by these notes.  And the idea that an information set is either a kind
of data structure or a kind of API can be met with even today, among
Working Group members who really ought to know better.)  But the notes 
do not appear specially effective in encouraging the appropriate mental 
hygiene.  If they puzzle some readers in QT, then, let us excise them.
Received on Friday, 21 September 2007 04:08:28 UTC

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