W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > December 2000

Re: [Moderator Action] Re: Schema validation terminology

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 12 Dec 2000 11:44:16 +0000
To: "Jeff Rafter" <jeffrafter@earthlink.net>
Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f5b7l55q2y7.fsf@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
"Jeff Rafter" <jeffrafter@earthlink.net> writes:

> > > Good point -- I used it because you suggested it!  Other suggestions?
> 
> > Sorry, yes I did suggest it.  I was confused with the separation
> > of schema error checking with instance validation.  How about
> > "complete" and "limited"?
> 
> Perhaps a more helpful definition in the long run would include an
> indication of what exactly "complete" or "limited" meant.  I think they are
> good descriptions but could see confusion when a colleague asks, "Is that
> schema complete, yet?" or the equally confusing response, "Yes, but it is
> still somewhat limited."  Instead maybe "resolved" or "fully resolved" and
> "unresolved" would be better choices.  I don't think these choices are
> exactly what I am searching for but it gives a better indication to the
> implication.  If any part of an XML schema is unresolved it is "not fully
> resolved", or something similar.

I like it -- "completely resolved" vs. "not completely resolved".

ht
-- 
  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
          W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team
     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
	    Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
		     URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
Received on Tuesday, 12 December 2000 06:44:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:19 GMT