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

[Bug 6193] New: clarify ##defined and ##sibling definitions

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:31:30 +0000
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-6193-703@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6193

           Summary: clarify ##defined and ##sibling definitions
           Product: XML Schema
           Version: 1.1 only
          Platform: Macintosh
        OS/Version: Mac System 9.x
            Status: ASSIGNED
          Keywords: editorial, needsDrafting
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Structures: XSD Part 1
        AssignedTo: cmsmcq@w3.org
        ReportedBy: cmsmcq@w3.org
         QAContact: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org


In bug 6010, John Arwe wrote:

  3.10.1 The Wildcard Schema Component

  "The keywords defined and sibling allow a kind of wildcard which matches only
  elements not declared in the current schema ..."
  Given that "schema" is, according to 2.1 which has the closest thing I could
  find to a formal definition of this word, just a set of schema components,
I'm
  not sure what the actual boundary for 'defined' is nor how interoperable its
  definition really is.  A schema processor is allowed to put almost literally
  anything (extra, i.e. unused) into the schema (set of components) used for
  assessment, no?  If there was some concept of a "minimal schema", at say
  schema document granularity, it might be clearer...of course then if someone
  re-factors the documents, ymmv.
  Conceptually I have no objection, I'm just not sure right now how wide its
net
  casts.

 3.10.1 The Wildcard Schema Component

  "The keywords defined and sibling allow a kind of wildcard which matches only
  elements not declared in the current schema ..."
  Similar question for sibling.  This is somewhat better defined than schema,
  but the language seems loose. {ns constraint} clause 6 talks about the 
  containing type decl; here, I wonder if that should read very literally, or 
  to include all of what look like sibling elements in an instance but are 
  attributed to {base type definition} items, transitively.

Each of these paragraphs indicates a need for clarification.  Editors to
draft suitable clarifications.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 30 October 2008 16:31:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:13:16 GMT