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

[Bug 7695] Conformance

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:11:27 +0000
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1N6X1j-00052B-1K@wiggum.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7695


C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
           Keywords|needsReview                 |resolved
         Resolution|                            |FIXED




--- Comment #6 from C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>  2009-11-06 22:11:26 ---
The wording proposal mentioned in commet 5 was adopted with amendments and
clarifications (including the required design decisions) on today's XML Schema
working group call.  The salient amendments were:

  1 The term 'annotator' was replaced by the term 'schema-validity assessor'
(or just 'assessor' for short).
  2 Assessors are defined as processors which provide access to the entire
PSVI, on the grounds that specifying that they expose some arbitrary subset
would make the conformance class meaningless.  Note that processors which
expose arbitrary subsets remain conformant to the spec; the question was not
about conformance but about which conformance class they fall into.
  3 The material after the definition of 'general-purpose' ("Such processors
must, when processing schema documents, implement (or enforce) all ·Schema
Representation Constraints· in this specification, and must adhere exactly to
the specifications in Schema Component Details (§3) for mapping the contents of
such documents to ·schema components· for use in ·validation· and
·assessment·.") was deleted.
  4 The inline text for validator was approved; the proposal to allow
validators to use definitions of validity other than those in 2.5
(root-validity, deep validity, complete validity) was rejected, on the grounds
that it would render the conformance class meaningless.
  5 The note following the definition of 'validator' was dropped.

Michael, I will leave it to you as the originator of the issue to close the
issue to indicate that you are satisfied with this resolution, or to reopen it
otherwise.  If we don't hear otherwise from you in the next two weeks we will
assume that you are satisfied.


-- 
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 Friday, 6 November 2009 22:11:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:13:19 GMT