confusing numbering in Part 1 Of Schema Structures

Consider the numbering in the appended extract from section 3.3.5 "Element Declaration Information Set Contributions" in part 1: Structures of the Schema specification. The numbering seems at variance with the meaning of the text . I recommend the following renumbering in accordance with my interpretation of the text.
1. Change "1 a single [type definition] <> property ... " to "1.1 a single [type definition] <> property ... ".
2. Change "2 if the ?type definition ... " to "1.1 if the ?type definition ... ".
3. Change "1 four properties as follows: ... " to "1.1.1 four properties as follows: ... ".
Donald Gignac	301-227-3348		"gignacda@nswccd.navy.mil"	 
Schema Information Set Contribution: Element Validated by Type 
If an element information item is ?valid with respect to a ?type definition as per Element Locally Valid (Type) (§3.3.4), in the post-schema-validation infoset the item has 
1 a [schema normalized value] <> property, whose value is the ?normalized value of the item as ?validated (provided clause 3.2 of Element Locally Valid (Element) (§3.3.4) and Element Default Value (§3.3.5) above have not applied); and either 
1 a single [type definition] <> property, containing an ?item isomorphic to the ?type definition component itself. 
2 if the ?type definition has a simple type definition {content type}, and that type definition has {variety} union, then additionally there is a [member type definition] <> property, containing an ?item isomorphic to that member of the {member type definitions} which actually ?validated the element item's ?normalized value. or 
1 four properties as follows: 
[type definition type] <> 
	simple or complex, depending on the type definition 
[type definition namespace] <> 
	the {target namespace} of the type definition 
[type definition anonymous] <> 
	true if the {name} of the type definition is ?absent, otherwise false 
[type definition name] <> 
	the {name} of the type definition, if it is not ?absent. If it is ?absent, schema processors may, but need not, provide a value unique to the definition. 
2 if the type definition has a simple type definition {content type}, and that type definition has {variety} union, then calling [Definition:] that member of the {member type definitions} which actually ?validated the element item's ?normalized value the actual member type definition, there are three additional properties:

Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2001 13:31:53 UTC