- From: Daniel Barclay <daniel@fgm.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 10:55:36 -0400
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Regarding the draft at http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PER-xmlschema-2-20040318/: Section 1.5 says: [Definition:] Constraint on Schemas Constraints on the schema components themselves, i.e. conditions components ·must· satisfy to be components at all. Largely to be found in Datatype components (§4). [Definition:] Schema Representation Constraint Constraints on the representation of schema components in XML. Some but not all of these are expressed in Schema for Datatype Definitions (normative) (§A) and DTD for Datatype Definitions (non-normative) (§B). [Definition:] Validation Rule Constraints expressed by schema components which information items ·must· satisfy to be schema-valid. Largely to be found in Datatype components (§4). Section 5 says: [Definition:] Minimally conforming processors ·must· completely and correctly implement the ·Constraint on Schemas· and ·Validation Rule· . Shouldn't the section-5 wording refer to "the Validation Rules" instead of "the Validation Rule"? It's confusing the way it's currently written. (There are many things titled "Validation Rule," so a reference to "the Validation Rules" (or "the validation rules") would be expected, but instead it refers to "the Validation Rule.") Certainly if the definition (section 1.5) is "constraints ..." (plural) then the term should be plural. Alternatively, the singular term could be defined as "a constraint..." If it is really desired that the singular term "the Validation Rule" refer to multiple constraints, then the definition should probably define it as some aggregate rule that consists of those constraints (e.g., "the 'Validation Rule' is the compound rule consisting of ..."). (Of course, that would probably be even more confusing, arguing against this case.) Daniel
Received on Friday, 11 June 2004 10:56:06 UTC