- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:54:05 +0000
- To: public-sml@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4774
------- Comment #17 from sandygao@ca.ibm.com 2007-12-13 17:54 -------
Summary of points that may need WG discussion.
>From comment #9:
2. In section 4.4, for "schema-incomplete". "A required schema is not included
..." Maybe it's more accurate to say "Some required schema documents *may* not
be included ...".
---------------
3. In the following paragraph "... distinguish between these two cases and
that is not always ...". Suggest to change "and" to "because".
--------------
12. It's not clear to me whether "namespaceBindingType" should also allow
extension points using wildcards.
-------------
15. Maybe it's helpful to have a default value for "schemaComplete":
<xs:attribute name="schemaComplete" type="xs:boolean"/> becomes
<xs:attribute name="schemaComplete" type="xs:boolean" default="true"/>
(Really meant for the default to be "false".)
----------
And from comment #14
[1]
I believe that the following 2 points from comment# 6 should apply even when a
consumer ignores the <schemaBindings> element.
6 schemaLocation on <include> and <redefined> are resolved using aliases
7 xsi:schemaLocation attributes and schemaLocation on <import> elements are
ignored
----------
[2]
I am not sure I understand the sentence (from section 5.4.2 Bindings defined)
below:
"Although SML-IF itself does not do so, various uses of SML-IF MAY choose to
extend the sets of documents involved in bindings to include documents not
contained in the interchange set."
----------
[3] Consumers that ignore the <schemaBindings> element:
The spec clearly defines the behavior when consumers choose to use the
<schemaBindings> element. The spec should also define the behavior when a
consumer ignores the <schemaBindings> element.
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2007 17:54:12 UTC