Re: some inconsistencies

Hi Henry,
     comment inline:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
To: "David Stephenson (by way of "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>)"
<david_stephenson@hp.com>
Subject: Re: some inconsistencies


 > "David Stephenson" <david_stephenson@hp.com> (by way of "C. M.
Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>) writes:
 >
 > >      there are some inconsistencies between the xml schema schema and
 > > the english specification (which rules?) that should be cleaned up.
 > >
 > >      Specifically the english specification parts ommit annotations
 > > where they are permitted in the schema schema. Two examples are:
 >
 > I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'the english specification'
 > -- see below for detailed questions.

By 'the English specification' I mean the normative parts of the spec, which
are formed from English sentences.
As apposed to normative parts of the spec which are formed from tables or text
eg: "2.2.1 {particles} is empty."

 > >      attributes uses
 > >
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#AU_details>http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1
/#AU_details
 >
 > Attribute uses are components which are always paired with attribute
 > declarations, and the latter carry the annotation, if any, associated
 > with an <attribute> element -- where specifically do you see an omission?

One should be able to put an annotation on  most elements within a schema, but
most importantly being able to add annotations to attributes uses
independently of attribute declarations. So 3.5.1 should also contain
{annotation}.

 > > and
 > >
 > >      element in
 > >
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#declare-element>http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlsch
ema-1/#declare-element
 > > for the last three cases Particle*2 & , Elemnt Decl.
 >
 > Again, in the first two cases I think you're misreading, and the
 > annotation is captured, but in the final (<element ref=.../>) case I
 > think you're right, there's a bug.

If the annotation is captured for the other two, I don't see how, but it would
not be the first time I have misunderstood the spec!

 > > more generally we should ensure the spec allows annotations where the
 > > schema schema allows them (i.e in most places).
 >
 > That is certainly our goal.
 >
 > > is this a bug in the current spec or were annotations ment to be
 > > illegal in these places?
 >
 > Unless I've misunderstood, one bug only.

I will restate my problem, I would like the "spec" to agree with the schema
schema in terms of where one can place a annotations.
The schema schema allows annotations on any <attribute> and <element>
elements.
I have attached a schema that I would like (need) to be valid.

You might ask why? do I want these annotations in these places, I am a member
of the JSR31 aka JAXB which is specifying how to bind XML schema into java, we
plan to use annotations to modify the default binding rules, there are
reasonable use cases for use where a user would want to place these
annotations on element and attributes with ref=.

cheers
     David

----------------------------------
David Stephenson
Web Services
Hewlett Packard
Telnet 447-4591
external +1-408-447-4581
----------------------------------



 > ht
 > --
 >   Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
 >           W3C Fellow 1999--2002, part-time member of W3C Team
 >      2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
 >     Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
 >      URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 >  [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged
spam]
 >