W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > January to March 2012

[Bug 16080] Why does XSD 1.1 part 1 cite XSD 1.0 2E normatively?

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:40:10 +0000
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1S0FEg-0000IW-QX@jessica.w3.org>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16080

Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |mike@saxonica.com

--- Comment #2 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> 2012-02-22 16:40:10 UTC ---
Agreed.

I think that for a reference to be normative, there has to be a statement in
the spec that defers to the referenced spec for an answer to a question that
affects conformance. There are no such statements in XSD 1.1 that refer to XSD
1.0, therefore the reference is not normative, and therefore the entry in the
bibliography has been editorially misplaced.

The reference should not be deleted, since there are many places in the text
where XSD 1.0 is mentioned non-normatively, usually to help readers by
indicating what has changed. Rather, the places where XSD 1.0 is mentioned
should be hyperlinked to the bibliography entry.

>XPath 2.0 also needs a note saying that only the portions of XPath 2.0
mentioned as obligatory in XSD 1.1 need to be implemented by XSD 1.1
implementations, not all of XPath 2.0.  

I think that's a misunderstanding of what a normative reference is. Making a
reference normative is an assertion that there are statements in this spec that
refer to the cited spec, and that to determine whether a processor is
conformant you will need to read the relevant sections of the cited spec.
There's certainly no implication that a conformant implementation of X requires
or includes a conformant implementation of Y.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://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 Wednesday, 22 February 2012 16:40:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:50:12 UTC