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

[Bug 3589] Definitions of "schema document" draft proposal for bugs 2822 and 2846 PSVI and processor profiles

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 15:24:22 +0000
CC:
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1JMPeo-0007Lk-CV@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3589





------- Comment #7 from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com  2008-02-05 15:24 -------
Commenting on the proposal at [1]which includes:

> 2. It is implementation-defined whether a schema
> processor can read schema documents in the form of
> XML documents. (See Conformance (2.4), for
> distinction between "minimally conforming"
> processors and "*schema-document aware*" processors.


The proposed text isn't quite working for me for a number of reasons.  First of
all, I think we agree that the term "schema-document" refers to the specific
form of XML Representation of schemas that we we set out, I.e. that validates
per the S4S, etc.  No controversy there I'd think.  So, it seems to me that one
could in principle write processors that accept schema information in any or
all of these forms:

1) *schema documents* as we define them with the termref in our spec.

2) Other forms of XML that convey the information needed to create or determine
components.  The dump format from XSV -r comes to mind as an example.

3) Non-XML forms

The proposed text says that some processors "can read schema documents in the
form of XML documents", and I find that confusing for a few reasons.  First of
all, it seems to be using the un-hyperlinked phrase "schema documents" for
something more general than its hyperlinked equivalent. I found that confusing
and I think other readers may too.  Secondly, taken with the rest of the text,
it implies that the only XML-form possibility is in fact the (hyperlinked
termref) *schema document* that is required by the reference to *schema
document aware* processors.

Alternate wording proposal:

> 2. Whether a *minimally conforming* processor is
> additionally able to which accept schemas
> represented in the form of XML documents as
> described in Layer 2: Schema Documents, Namespaces
> and Composition (4.2) is implementation defined.
>  (See Conformance (2.4), which defines 
> "schema-document-aware" processors as
> processors as those that can  process schema 
> documents in this form.)

Note that the phrasing starting with "schemas represented in the form..." is
copied directly from 2.4, and so introduces no new complications or imprecision
(I hope).  Also, note that the entire proposal is intentionally modeled on the
existing point #3, which says:

> 3. Whether a schema-document aware processor is
> able to retrieve schema documents from the Web is
> implementation-defined. (See Conformance (2.4),
> which defines "Web-aware" processors as
> schema-document aware processors which can
> retrieve schema documents from the Web.)

Noah

[1]
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.consent.200802.html
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2008 15:24:27 GMT

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