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

[Bug 11250] New: minor editorial suggestions : improvements to section "3.7 Model Group Definitions"

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 05:12:55 +0000
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-11250-703@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11250

           Summary: minor editorial suggestions : improvements to section
                    "3.7 Model Group Definitions"
           Product: XML Schema
           Version: 1.1 only
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: minor
          Priority: P2
         Component: Structures: XSD Part 1
        AssignedTo: David_E3@VERIFONE.com
        ReportedBy: gandhi.mukul@gmail.com
         QAContact: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
                CC: cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com


I'm referring to the latest editor's draft of XML Schema 1.1 spec (ref,
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.omni.20101029.html)
and have few suggestions as below to improve slightly the intent of section
"3.7.2 XML Representation of Model Group Definition Schema Components".

1. The title "XML Mapping Summary for Particle Schema Component" might probably
be changed to "XML Mapping Summary for Model Group Particle Schema Component".

(only mention of word "Particle" in the title above confused me a bit, since
schema particles of various kinds)

2. The "Note:" section just below the table for "XML Mapping Summary for
Particle Schema Component" may be modified from (after the heading of this
table is changed to something like as specified in point 1 above):

<old>
The name of this section is slightly misleading, in that the second, un-named,
case above (with a ref and no name) is not really a named model group at all,
but a reference to one. Also note that in the first (named) case above no
reference is made to minOccurs or maxOccurs: this is because the schema for
schema documents does not allow them on the child of <group> when it is named.
This in turn is because the {min occurs} and {max occurs} of the particles
which refer to the definition are what count.
</old>

TO may be text like follows:

<new>
In the first (named) case above no reference is made to minOccurs or maxOccurs:
this is because the schema for schema documents does not allow them as
attributes of <group> when it is named. This in turn is because the {min
occurs} and {max occurs} of the particles which refer to the definition are
what count.
</new>

i.e readers of the spec are probably confused, when it's said "The name of this
section is *slightly misleading* etc".

In the cited <old> text above, the phrase "does not allow them on the child of
<group> when it is named" appears incorrect (since minOccurs and maxOccurs are
not child of <group> but ARE attributes). I believe corrected text should be
somewhat like following, "does not allow them as attributes of <group> when it
is named" -- which is suggested in the <new> text as above.

-- 
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, 7 November 2010 05:12:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 7 November 2010 05:12:58 GMT