W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > October to December 2010

[Bug 9922] xs:ID element as outermost element in document

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 13:24:50 +0000
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1PEMHi-0006QW-M0@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9922

--- Comment #6 from Sandy Gao <sandygao@ca.ibm.com> 2010-11-05 13:24:50 UTC ---
I will concur with the WG's decision, but ...

1. Do we believe that a significant number of existing schema 1.0 processors
actually forbids I1 and allows I2 in comment #3? It's likely that a conforming
1.1 processor will behave differently from 1.0 anyway.

2. If we adopt option 1 in comment #4, I "doubt" it will have "other
counter-intuitive consequences".

3. The "needsDrafting" instruction is to explain why I1 is invalid. Do we
believe we can do that without
- Saying something inaccurate
- Saying something unclear
- Drawing people's attention to the counter-intuitive cases?

For example, we may need to say "The first clause above applies when there is a
reference to an undefined ID, <add>or when the validation root element has an
ID value (pending the work to make it easy to say "has an ID value") and there
is no other occurrence of the same ID value elsewhere in the document.</add>"

Not sure we can say less than that, and this will likely confuse the reader
more and eventually lead them to the discovery of the counter-intuitive case.

I agree this is indeed a corner case. Maybe we should just leave things alone?

-- 
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, 5 November 2010 13:24:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 5 November 2010 13:24:53 GMT