[Bug 30063] XSD treatment of Explicit Defaults

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=30063

--- Comment #2 from Clayton D <bugzilla_w3.claytond@spamgourmet.com> ---
Perhaps I'm not clear on the status of the various documents.  I'm under the
impression that the textual specification is the standard and that the XSD is
an attempt to provide a machine-readable strategy for enforcing the standard
(and therefore a second class citizen).

I couldn't find anything in the standard that explicitly prohibited the
attribute... and several places where its value (perhaps implied by context)
was required.  It therefore appears to me that the XSD seems to be more
restrictive than the standard.  The document states that "Comments on this
document should be made in W3C's public installation of Bugzilla".  Comment
submitted. 

There are several obvious (but likely non-exhaustive) ways that my the comment
could be invalid:

 - The XSD could be the authoritative standard
 - The XSD could be a first class citizen representing the intent of the
textual standard (and upon consideration the desired interpretation)
 - The standard could include an explicit statement prohibiting the value
 - The standard could be designed in such a way that the prohibition is implied
by existing content

If one of these (or another) applies, the usual protocol is to explain which
and close the issue.  If none of these apply, my comment/question seems valid. 
My suggestion is fully backwards compatible.  It's impossible to anticipate
every corner case and, upon consideration, they may find my example a valid
reason to change it.

It's certainly not going to change if I don't point out the (perceived)
problem.  And if nothing is ever going to change, it would seem like a waste to
keep this tracker up... let alone **subscribe** to the issues submitted to it.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Wednesday, 15 February 2017 00:29:49 UTC