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

Re: [Bug 2218] R-226: Must the content of schemaLocation be a resolvable URL?

From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:13:46 -0700
Message-Id: <8E4D1985-8484-4545-AC5F-1C8E14A452FE@acm.org>
Cc: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>, Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org

On 12 Feb 2008, at 17:01 , bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org wrote:

> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2218
>
>
> ------- Comment #4 from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com  2008-02-13  
> 00:01 -------
> If I'm looking at the right part of the proposed revised spec, it  
> says:
>
>> It is not an error for such an attempt to
>> fail, but failure may cause less than complete
>> ·assessment· outcomes.
>
> The phrase "less than complete" doesn't seem quite right.

It's the phrase we have used since XSD 1.0 to describe
validation with what one might informally call a 'partial'
schema.

The sentence on which you are commenting is modeled closely
on the one in 4.2.2 which makes the analogous point
for inclusions, and the one in 4.2.4.2 which makes it for
imports.  If you'd like to revise that wording, I think
you're raising an issue quite distinct from 2218, which
is about the lack of parallelism in the schemaLocation cases,
in the status quo of before 8 February.


> I can see why we might describe the LAX case as resulting in a  
> "less than
> complete outcome", but I'm not convinced that phrase is the right  
> choice for
> the other cases.  If my analysis is correct, I wonder if it might  
> be better to
> say:
>
> "...but failure may affect the determination of validity for some  
> or all
> elements or attributes, may result in validity not being assessed  
> at all for
> some or all elements or attributes, or may create a situation in  
> which a schema
> suitable for use in assessment could not be constructed."
>
> Wordy, but more accurate I think.  If someone can propose something  
> shorter
> that seems effective, I'd probably be in favor of that.

"... may lead to less than complete assessment outcomes." :)
Terser, and clearer.

--CMSMcQ
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2008 03:13:56 GMT

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