[Bug 2742] wd-14: Editorial note on section 5.2

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2742

           Summary: wd-14: Editorial note on section 5.2
           Product: XML Schema
           Version: 1.1 only
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows XP
            Status: NEW
          Keywords: needsDrafting
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Structures: XSD Part 1
        AssignedTo: ht@w3.org
        ReportedBy: holstege@mathling.com
         QAContact: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org


There is a grammatical oddity (as well as a certain amount of obscurity) in a 
sentence in section 5.2 of Structures.

I believe the sentence

3 The processor starts from Schema-Validity Assessment (Element) (3.3.4) with no 
stipulated declaration or definition, and either strict or lax assessment 
ensues, depending on whether or not the element information and the schema 
determine either an element declaration (by name) or a type definition (via xsi:
type) or not.

has one 'or not' too many.

Quick fix: delete the first 'or not', yielding

3 The processor starts from Schema-Validity Assessment (Element) (3.3.4) with no 
stipulated declaration or definition, and either strict or lax assessment 
ensues, depending on whether the element information and the schema determine 
either an element declaration (by name) or a type definition (via xsi:type) or 
not.

This has the drawback that it makes the decision about strict or lax assessment 
easier to misunderstand than it was before.

I believe that what is meant is

3 The processor starts from Schema-Validity Assessment (Element) (3.3.4) with no 
stipulated declaration or definition. If the element information and the schema 
determine either an element declaration (by name) or a type definition (via xsi:
type), then strict assessment is performed; otherwise, the element information 
item is validated with respect to the ur-type definition.

If my understanding is correct, I offer the wording just above as a possible 
rewording of the rule.

If my understanding is incorrect, I offer the wording just above as evidence of 
one way that a reasonably attentive reader can be led astray by the current 
wording.

Editorial concerning
Part 1
Assessing Schema-Validity

Transition history
raised on 2 Nov 2004 by C. M. Sperberg-McQueen (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/
Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2004OctDec/0015.html)
agreed on 10 Dec 2004 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/
2004Dec/0043.html)

RESOLVED: to close issue wd-14 by accepting the second proposed wording.

Acknowledgment cycle
announced by group on 10 Dec 2004 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-
schema-ig/2004Dec/0043.html)
agreement by reviewer on 10 Dec 2004 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-
xml-schema-ig/2004Dec/0043.html)

Action history
Part 1 Editors
accepted on 10 Dec 2004 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/
2004Dec/0043.html)


Editors to adjust wording of the editorial note in section 5.2 of part 1 (the 
bit commented in in issue wd-14), using the second proposed wording.

Received on Friday, 20 January 2006 21:13:29 UTC