W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > January 2011

[Bug 11095] Lack of clarity on 'unknown' types

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 21:35:36 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1PhqY4-0007VL-O1@jessica.w3.org>

Michael Dyck <jmdyck@ibiblio.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |jmdyck@ibiblio.org

--- Comment #4 from Michael Dyck <jmdyck@ibiblio.org> 2011-01-25 21:35:35 UTC ---

> * Definition: Data Model Schema
>  [Definition: For a given node <add>or atomic value</add> in an
>  XDM instance, the data model schema is defined as the schema
>  from which the type annotation of that node was derived.]

After "that node", insert "or atomic value".
Maybe change occurrences of "node or atomic value" to "item".

Moreover, "type annotation" is currently only defined for (element and
attribute) nodes, so we'd need to define it for atomic values.

Also (this is pre-existing language but) using the word "derived" might suggest
derived types, so I wonder if:
    the schema from which X was derived
should be changed to something like:
    the schema that defines X

>  For a node <add>or atomic value</add> that was constructed by some
>  process other than schema validation,

(Again, this is existing language, but) I don't think it's correct to talk
about nodes and atomic values being constructed by validation. Instead of:
    constructed by some process other than schema validation
maybe it should say:
    constructed from something other than a PSVI

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 Tuesday, 25 January 2011 21:35:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:57:34 UTC