- From: Daniel Barclay <daniel@fgm.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:54:18 -0400
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Regarding the draft at http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PER-xmlschema-2-20040318/: Section 4.2.2.1 says: When {variety} is ·union·, {value} is partial unless one of the following: * If every member of {member type definitions} is derived from a common ancestor other than the simple ur-type, then {value} is the same as that ancestor's ordered facet * If every member of {member type definitions} has a {value} of false for the ordered facet, then {value} is false The wording: every member of {member type definitions} is derived from a common ancestor probably needs to say: all members of {member type definitions} are derived from a common ancestor (or perhaps something like: every member of {member type definitions} is derived from a common ancestor of all the member types definitions) (otherwise "common" is ambiguous and could taken to apply to each member (the singleton set containing that member) instead of clearly applying across the original set of all member type definitions). Additionally, the wording: unless one of the following: ... is missing something. Saying: unless one of the following is true: ... or: unless one of the following applies: ... would probably be better (but still needs additional improvement). If nothing better can be found, this structure should be fully coherent grammatically: ... the value is x unless: - <statement of condition 1>, in which case the value is y, or - <statement of condition 2>, in which case the value is z. ) Daniel
Received on Thursday, 10 June 2004 14:54:48 UTC