W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > April to June 2008

[Bug 3220] Terminology: "must"

From: <bugzilla@farnsworth.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 20:45:05 +0000
CC:
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Jw1Mv-00034c-3x@farnsworth.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3220





------- Comment #12 from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com  2008-05-13 20:45 -------
Since I expressed some concern with the draft text on error reporting, our
chair has encouraged me to try and offer an alternative that would be more
acceptable, at least to me, and I hope to others.  I also went back to the
minutes of the Redmond meeting to see if I could unravel the source of the
confusion on this, and I think I have.

Those minutes [1] say:

> We identified two question we needed to answer:

>    1. What is the relation of “must”, “conformance”, and “error”?
>    2. What is the obligation of a processor if data do not conform?
>           * must, or may, or should, or ..., reject the data
>           * must, or may, or should, or ..., detect and report errors

> We seemed to have consensus on the answers:

>    1. If a processor or data “must” do X, then a processor or
>       data which does not do X is “non-conformant” (and conversely
>       all “conformant” or “conforming” processors and/or data do X).
>       Also there is an “error” if and only if some data are non-conforming.
>   2.  The obligation of a processor, if the data do not conform,
>       is to detect and report errors.

FWIW, I believe that this was discussed after I had to leave for the airport,
I'm not sure how much emphasis to put on the record that we ">seem to have<
consensus" as opposed to the more typical "we >have< consensus".  Anyway, I
assume that there was more or less consensus among the people in the room, but
unfortunately, I would not have agreed were I there.  I leave it to our chair
to decide whether my concerns should be addressed, or whether given the time
pressure to ship we need to stick with the direction suggested above.

In case the chair decides that it's indeed worth some time to try and satisfy
my concerns, my preferred answers to the questions would have been:

1) Fine as proposed, I think.
2) Suggested spec text:  "A conforming processor MUST NOT produce output that
incorrectly indicates that nonconforming data is conforming (e.g. accepting as
a valid schema document input that does not meet the pertinent constraints). 
Conforming processors MUST also observe the requirements stated elsewhere in
this Recommendation that certain operations, such as assessment, have as
preconditions input schemas, schema documents, etc. that are conforming.  When
provided with input that is not conforming, processors MAY (and indeed in most
cases SHOULD) report that conformance error(s) have occurred.

I suggest that (2) replace the 2nd paragraph under "Error" (wordsmithing
welcome).  Again, I do acknowledge that this proposed text does not reflect the
consensus that "seemed" to be reached in Redmond, but it does reflect my
preferences.  I hope this is helpful in coming to a resolution.

Thank you.

Noah


[1] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2007/10/xml-schema-ftf-minutes#b3220
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2008 20:56:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:13:15 GMT