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

[Bug 5165] Editorial: numbering of rules and constraints

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 01:31:49 +0000
CC:
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1JAbPZ-0006YU-I8@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5165


cmsmcq@w3.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
  Status Whiteboard|                            |medium, work




------- Comment #1 from cmsmcq@w3.org  2008-01-04 01:31 -------
Just to make sure I follow correctly: the proposal is that,
effectively, wherever the document now has a validation rule,
constraint on schema, etc., we should wrap it in a subsection?  

Consider, for example, section 3.4.6 Constraints on Complex Type
Definition Schema Components, which currently has the following
structure

  section 3.4.6
      title: Constraints on Complex Type Definition Schema Components
      para:  All complex type definitions ...
      const: Complex Type Definition Properties Correct
      const: Derivation Valid (Extension)
      para:  A complex type T is a valid extension ...
      const: Derivation Valid (Restriction, Complex)
      note:  Valid restriction involves both a subset relation on ...
      const: Content type restricts
      note:  To restrict a complex type definition ...
      note:  To restrict away a local element declaration ,,,
      para:  The following constraint defines a relation appealed to
             elsewhere in this specification.
      const: Type Derivation OK (Complex)
      note:  This constraint is used to check ...
      note:  The wording of clause 2.1 above appeals to a notion of
             component identity ...
      note:  When a complex type definition S is said to be ...

(where 'const' is short for 'constraintnote')

If I understand your proposal correctly it would be to give the
section a structure something like this:

  section 3.4.6
    title: Constraints on Complex Type Definition Schema Components
    para:  All complex type definitions ...

    section 3.4.6.1
      title: Complex Type Definition Properties Correct
      const: Complex Type Definition Properties Correct

    section 3.4.6.2
      title: Derivation Valid (Extension)
      const: Derivation Valid (Extension)
      para:  A complex type T is a valid extension ...

    section 3.4.6.3
      title: Derivation Valid (Restriction, Complex)
      const: Derivation Valid (Restriction, Complex)
      note:  Valid restriction involves both a subset relation on ...

    section 3.4.6.4
      title: Content type restricts
      const: Content type restricts
      note:  To restrict a complex type definition ...
      note:  To restrict away a local element declaration ,,,

    section 3.4.6.5
      title: Type Derivation OK (Complex)
      para:  The following constraint defines a relation appealed to
             elsewhere in this specification.
      const: Type Derivation OK (Complex)
      note:  This constraint is used to check ...
      note:  The wording of clause 2.1 above appeals to a notion of
             component identity ...
      note:  When a complex type definition S is said to be ...

The placement of paragraphs and notes which now occur between
constraint notes will require a very little judgement on the part of
those making the wording proposal.

>From your remarks in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2008Jan/0001.html
(member-only link), I think that this is indeed what you have in mind.

If this is what you are proposing, I endorse it so heartily I can
hardly understand why we haven't done it before. 
Received on Friday, 4 January 2008 01:31:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:13:12 GMT