RE: Its time to publish 2nd draft

Here are some comments-that I was able to complete on the plane.
(Again, regrets regarding this week's meeting; I will not be able to
make it.

 

The Abstract still mentions XML Schema "profile."  (Also don't we have
to also clean up using "profile" with regard to Schematron?)

 

In the Introduction: a period is needed at the end of the bold sentence
in item #2.

 

IMHO, the definition of Rules in section 5 should restrict XML Schema to
just version 1.0, since 1.1 now contains a simple constraint language.

 

I would recommend that the new example of using sml:nilref="true" in
section 4.1 include the <Name> and <Grade> elements from the example
above to more clearly make the distinction between xsi:nil="true" and
sml:nilref="true"  Perhaps some verbiage following the example would be
helpful to further explain null references and contrast that with the
sml:ref="false".

 

Two questions:

1.	Something to think about for the future:  What does "resolves"
apply to: a scheme or a reference?  Well, both, which makes the use of
"reference" float between these two levels.  I would suggest that
reference elements refer while schemes point.  I think making this
distinction will alleviate any confusion that may arise from the current
text. 
2.	Given the discussion we had about validators vs. consumers with
regard dereferencing behaviors, why MUST a validator provide an
implementation for deref()?  A validator must apply "strict" validation
to references, which is different behavior from deref.

 

Why do we say that a validator MUST not try to deref a null reference
when in fact we define an output (0 nodes) for a null reference?

 

Section 4.2.1 states, "if a model validator chooses to represent
references with the URI scheme".  Since when does the validator "choose
to represent references"?  Isn't that the role of the document producer?

 

I would suggest changing all the names ending in "...RefType" in the
example in section 4.4.1 to simply "...Reference". 

 

 

In SML-IF, the following statement is made in section 2.2:

      See section 6, "Equivalence," and section 5 "Reference Resolution"
in particular.

      There currently are no sections 5 and 6 in the document.

 

 

Kirk Wilson, Ph.D.
Research Staff Member

CA Labs

603 823-7146

 

________________________________

From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Pratul Dublish
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 4:38 PM
To: public-sml@w3.org
Subject: Its time to publish 2nd draft

 

All

We are close to our target date for publishing the second draft (which
is 9/19). The editorial team is working on updating the spec to reflect
the changes that were approved in yesterday's call and expect to have a
draft ready by Monday, 9/17.  They have already made several changes and
these are ready for review by the members.  Please review the following
changes made by the editorial team and send in  any request for changes
at the earliest and no later than 5 PM PST on 9/18

 

4630 <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4630>  

Clarify relation of SML and XML 1.0 vs 1.1 

4638 <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4638>  

Conformance section needed 

4647 <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4647>  

smlerr:output - why exclude node sets including text node... 

4686 <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4686>  

Use schema terminorlogies to describe "xml schema valid" 

4802 <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4802>  

For bullet points 4,5 (...XPath expression must conform t... 

4803 <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4803>  

Edit bullet point (A pattern MUST be evaluated for an ins... 

4884 <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4884>  

update the definition of a null reference to include the ... 

 

 

Thanks!

Pratul