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

[Bug 5194] Editorial comments on section 3.4.2

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 22:51:23 +0000
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1IhCIt-00008W-8c@wiggum.w3.org>


           Summary: Editorial comments on section 3.4.2
           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: mike@saxonica.com
         QAContact: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org

(Note: it's very hard to describe the location of text fragments in this
section with clarity! Table numbers, or something similar, would really help.)

para 2 typo, missing space after first "}".

In the XML Representation Summary, {prohibited substitutions}, "otherwise on
the actual value", should "on" be "to"? In the Note, typo, missing space in
"restriction orextension".

In {assertions} the reference to the <restriction> and <extension> elements
seems informal (in comparison with the equivalent in {annotations}), perhaps it
should say "the <assert> element information items among the [children] of the
<complexType> and among the [children] of the <restriction> and <extension>
[children] of its <complexContent> or <simpleContent> (?) [children], if any,
in order".

Under "Complex Type Definition with complex content Schema Component":

{content type} rule 1 (mixed), it's not clear that cases 1.1 and 1.2 are
mutually exclusive. Should 1.2 be "otherwise, if..."?

In the second of the three notes following the big table, that is, the "Note:
Aside from the simple coherence requirements..." this sentence is VERY hard to
parse. (If you make the mistake of reading "constraining" as "which constrain",
then the verb "is" has no subject, and when you eventually discover this, you
have to backtrack a long way to recover).

The sentence "Careful consideration of the above concrete syntax reveals "
seems to add little. Even more careful consideration reveals that you don't
even need the name, so <complexType/> is also allowed. So what?

In the Examples, there appear to be instance fragments and schema fragments,
with no explanation indicating the boundaries between them. (The xmlspec markup
allows Examples to have titles, which would make them easier to refer to.) The
use of "daughter" seems alarming, since when did children acquire a gender?
Received on Sunday, 14 October 2007 22:51:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:50:07 UTC