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: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 21:12:25 +0000
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1JBcnB-0007lJ-29@wiggum.w3.org>


------- Comment #4 from davep@iit.edu  2008-01-06 21:12 -------
(In reply to comment #2)

> Behind these stylistic differences there is actually something more
> fundamental: some of the constraints are merely definitions of properties that
> a component may or may not have (These are often introduced with the phrase
> "The following constraints define relations appealed to elsewhere in this
> specification."), while some of them describe rules that components must
> satisfy in order to be valid. 

>                                   constraints should be in the form "Every
> complex type definition T must satisfy all of the following", or "Definition: a
> complex type P is a _valid restriction_ of a complex type Q if all the
> following conditions are true"

I don't understand why a definition alone should ever be called a constraint. 
Why aren't the presented simply as formal definitions?
Received on Sunday, 6 January 2008 21:12:31 UTC

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