[Bug 5896] Description of particles and terms in 2.2.3.2 confusing

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5896





--- Comment #5 from Dave Peterson <davep@iit.edu>  2009-07-26 15:21:11 ---
(All this speaking for myself, not in any way for the Schema WG.)

I believe that you'll find that the component structure and names of kinds of
components follow the following rule:  The largest "kind" of component is "any
kind of component".  There are sub-kinds of components, such as "annotated
components" and "term[ componen]ts".  At the bottom of the "kind" hierarchy are
the (seventeen, I believe) kinds of components explicitly described in chapter
3:  "attribute declaration[ component]s", "model group definition[
component]s", "particle[ component]s", etc.  I believe that the
bottom-of-the-hierarchy kinds of components do not have definitions marked as
such, whereas the other kinds (which are unions of these b-o-t-h kinds) do have
formally marked definitions.

At least a quick but not exhaustive search leads me to that conclusion.  If I'm
right, then it would probably seem odd to make a definition for one of the
b-o-t-h kinds but not the others.

I suspect that your confusion over the two uses of the word "term" would be
lessened if the occurrences that are links to the component kind were visually
distinct from those that are referring to words in our technical English
jargon.  (And that all such occurrences were marked as such, if there are some
that aren't.

Whew!

N.B.:  I use the word "kind" rather than "type" or "class", because some people
associate both those latter words with object-oriented concepts; OO is in turn
associated with "data hiding", and XML is in their minds just the opposite : 
making data more visible.  So OO terminology becomes anathema in this context.


-- 
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 Sunday, 26 July 2009 15:21:21 UTC