W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > July to September 2003

Re: Posssible erratum relating to Infoset Dependencies

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 09:59:30 +0100
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Cc: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5bllsxm32l.fsf@erasmus.inf.ed.ac.uk>

noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com writes:

>       Element Information Item
>             [local name], [namespace name], [children], [attributes],
>             [in-scope namespaces] or [namespace attributes]
>       Namespace Information Item
>             [prefix], [namespace name]
>       This specification does not require any destructive alterations to
>       the input information set: all the information set contributions
>       specified herein are additive.
>       This appendix is intended to satisfy the requirements for Conformance
>       to the [XML-Infoset] specification.
> should we not be appealing to [in-scope namespaces] to resolve p, p1, and
> p2?

We should and we do (see 3.2.18 in Datatypes[1]).

> If so, I think we want an erratum to clarify section D.

I don't _think_ so -- we already list [in-scope namespace] and the
Namespace information item in Appendix D (see above) -- am I missing

> Also: I think section D is somewhat ambiguous as to whether it
> applies to instances and/or schema docs.

True -- that could stand to be clarified, I agree.


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#QName
  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                      Half-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]
Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2003 04:59:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:09:00 UTC