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

Re: [Bug 5156] 3.4.2 XML Representation of Complex Type Definitions

From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:11:12 -0600
Message-Id: <7309B5B6-7B7F-48B0-8667-6AC3AE080B7B@acm.org>
Cc: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@w3.org>, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
To: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>

[to comments list, not bugzilla, to avoid cluttering Bugzilla
with this]

On 24 Mar 2008, at 15:07 , bugzilla@farnsworth.w3.org wrote:

> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5156
> ------- Comment #4 from johnarwe@us.ibm.com  2008-03-24 21:07 -------
>> the editors suffered from weak stomachs at the crucial moment and
>     could not bring themselves to formulate the title as "XML
>     representation of particle schema components")
> If PSC is such a horrid phrase, someone will have to explain to me/ 
> us the
> existence of "3.9.1 The Particle Schema Component"

I think the explanation is

   (1) other editors, with other stomachs, wrote that title
   (2) my stomach is willing to remain quiet when some phrases
       are read, but not when they are written

This is not a satisfactory answer, but it does attempt to be an
honest one.  It may be that some threshold is crossed between
a section title with four words, three of which are nouns, and
a title with six words, five of which are nouns.

If we were writing the spec from scratch, I think the text
would benefit from a rule that said "particles are, by
definition, schema components.  So are type definitions and
element declarations and all the rest.  So 'particle schema
component' and 'particle' denote exactly the same thing;
do not use three words where one will do exactly the same

> (still on 3.2.2) This _might_ help incrementally
> from: had not had
> to  : had not specified
> I at least get one less brain fault in the latter rendering.

Thank you; done.  (Will go to the WG with some other
editorial proposals.)

> (still on 3.2.2)  Here is how I am reading it, in case I'm wildly  
> wrong again.
> I might be tempted to add something like this to the new 3.2.2 text.
> "In other words, the case where the {base type definition} T  
> allowed the
> {attribute use} but the restriction prohibits it."

I'll propose a note saying this.

Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2008 00:11:50 UTC

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