- 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