W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > January 2003

Re: infinite loop

From: Jeff Rafter <jeffrafter@defined.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 09:26:26 -0600
Message-ID: <035701c2b8bc$a45b1430$54f0d90c@c1980223a>
To: "Jeni Tennison" <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>

Hi Jeni,

> I think that you've overlooked a little paragraph that appears between
> the Particle Correct Schema Component Constraint (SCC) and the
> Particle Valid (Extension) SCC. Between these two SCCs, it says:
>
>  "The following constraints define relations appealed to elsewhere in
>   this specification."

You are oh so correct-- I did miss that and it is extremely compelling, I
think that your interpretation absolutely correct.

<caveat alt="You don't have to read this... it is ridiculous...">

Looking again my only question is why the first paragraph says "constraints"
if there is only one. But that is a really really banal question, isn't it?
To beat the proverbial dead horse... I looked through the rest of the
specification and can find no clear pattern to that wording (which is often
repeated)... I made a full table of the usage but will save the bandwidth
(and my own embarrassment...) and will instead point out a couple of
examples-- in the Element declaration section, the phrase reads: "...must
satisfy the following constraint..." (singular) and one constraint follows;
then the split paragraph for constraints referred to elsewhere appears and
states "The following constraints..." (plural) and three constraints follow.
So the grammar agrees. Is it possible that when the first paragraph says
"constraints" that it works like an "and" where it applies for both? Who
knows. For the "Identity Constraints"
3.11.6(http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#coss-identity-constraint)  it uses
the the singular "constraint" and three constraints follow... so by my wacky
pedantic logic should you only follow the first one... I don't think so.

I still think you are 100% correct, and this isn't just some attempt for me
to weasel out of being wrong... really... it's not... well... It should be
noted that I was laughing at myself for even bringing this up. : )

If anyone wants to see the full breakdown I would be happy to send it...

</caveat>

Cheers,

Jeff Rafter
Defined Systems
http://www.defined.net
XML Development and Developer Web Hosting
Received on Friday, 10 January 2003 10:19:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:35 GMT