- From: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 16:02:43 +0200
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- Message-Id: <1081346562.28973.316.camel@stratustier>
[bcc to www-qa] Hello, XML Schema WG, I've had a look at the following document, with a QA-ish eye; my hope is that reviewing your document early in its Rec-track life may make it easier for you to take the comments into account. Document reviewed: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xmlschema-ref-20040309/ XML Schema: Component Designators W3C Working Draft 9 March 2004 Conformance related comments: - the document doesn't distinguish normative from information sections; it would useful to do so to allow your readers to see where the requirements are set at first glance - the documents seems to use a declarative style to define its requirements, although there is an occurrence RFC 2119 Keyword ("MAY") in 4.; the declarative style seems pretty appropriate to this abstract type of specification, but it makes it harder to identify edge-cases and error processing if applicable - the conformance section is marked as "To be done"; does the WG has even a remote idea of what conformance to this specification would look like? if so, documenting this would be tremendously useful; e.g., is there any expectation to define an XML Schema Designator processor? or is it out of scope for this specification? what about XML Schema Designator generators (which, confusingly enough, would likely XML Schema processors)? - 4.2.3 has "The URI on the left hand side of the schema component designator should be a URI of an actual document, in some media type. That media type should be some XML derivative, so that the XPointer framework applies." ; this seems very fuzzy: a URI is an identifier ; in this case, what it identifies would be a schema designator rather than "a document"; I think it should say "The schema designator URI should be dereferenceable ; if it is, the representation of this URI should be an XML document with a MIME-Type on which the XPointer framework applies" - "In the simplest case, where there is one root schema document, the URI of that document suffices" ; maybe a "SHOULD" for XSCD generators would be in order, with a reference to the WebArch principle http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20031209/#uri-aliases - compatibility with XPath in the XSCD steps would be a big plus Editorial comments: - the EBNF in 4.1 seems to contradict the possibility of using the xmlns() scheme in the relative-schema-component-designator - "schena" should read "schema" in 4.2.2 - the formatting of the TOC is done with ; please use the appropriate HTML markup instead (nested <ul> or <ol>) - "Structurally, the first part looks like a URI, and the second part looks like an XPointer fragment identifier. An absolute schema component designator therefore is structurally a URI reference." -> why 'looks like' rather than 'is'? (at least, it should be either 'looks like' in all the cases, or 'is' in all the cases) - splitting the bibliography into Normative/Informative references would be good - I have some suspicion the document was produced with XMLSpec; could the XML version be provided as a non-normative alternative version to the doc? Thanks, Dom -- Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/ W3C/ERCIM mailto:dom@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2004 10:02:46 UTC