W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > October to December 2009

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

From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:38:39 -0600
Cc: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <0E5087DF-3A09-4EC9-B2FB-92E785720D76@blackmesatech.com>
To: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>

On 26 Oct 2009, at 09:33 , bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org wrote:

> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5156
>
>
>
>
>
> --- Comment #9 from John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>  2009-10-26  
> 15:33:15 ---
> So I can explain this correctly to the SML wg, am I correct in  
> thinking that
> the wording proposal in comment 7 handles the issues raised in  
> comment 4 in the
> following ways?
>
>> 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"
> no response

The change originally requested has been made; section 3.9.2 now
carries the title XML Representation of Particle Schema Components.

>> to  : is prohibited.
> no change made (looking the wording proposal, fwiw I'd agree with  
> "no change")

Correct.  Section 1.5 defines "E has Att = Value" as short-hand for
"there is an attribute information item among the [attribute uses]
of E, whose expanded name matches the expanded name 'Att' and
whose actual value is Value", which means the WG can sometimes (not
always) be persuaded to use a quarter of a line of text where two
and a half lines would do as well.  But 'is' benefits from no such
definition.

>
>> to  : what would have been an {attribute use}
> no change made

Correct.  {attribute use} is not the name of a property, and
'would have been a member of {attribute uses}' did not seem to
be an improvement.

>
>> to  : had not specified
> no change made

Correct.

>> (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."
> note added, wording amended in comment 8

Right.

>> 2.1.3  I prefer KISS to fancy writing when things are this complex.
> no change made

No, the sentence was recast.  The recasting did not take the form
you suggested, but it seemed less prone to the ambiguity I understood
you to be pointing out.


-- 
****************************************************************
* C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, Black Mesa Technologies LLC
* http://www.blackmesatech.com
* http://cmsmcq.com/mib
* http://balisage.net
****************************************************************
Received on Monday, 26 October 2009 16:39:14 GMT

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