- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 01:13:37 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3589 ------- Comment #2 from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com 2006-09-06 01:13 ------- Michael Sperberg-McQueen wrote: > but I do have an attachment to saying that it's > implementation-defined whether an implementation can read schema > documents in XML form, and implementation-defined whether it can read > them in some other form which corresponds to an infoset. With the caveat that I haven't recently researched all the related text in the spec., I don't have any problem with what Michael is proposing above. I have an "attachment" to the spirit of the existing text which says: "The principal purpose of XML Schema: Structures is to define a set of schema components that constrain the contents of instances and augment the information sets thereof. Although no external representation of schemas is required for this purpose, such representations will obviously be widely used. To provide for this in an appropriate and interoperable way, this specification provides a normative XML representation for schemas which makes provision for every kind of schema component. [Definition:] A document in this form (i.e. a <schema> element information item) is a schema document. " So, a "Schema document" is by definition an information item. It's also very clear from the above that when we refer to the "XML Representation" we are using that as shorthand for an "XML Infoset conveying the Representation." If anything else in the existing text suggests otherwise, I think it should be changed to match these definitions. The text that Michael advocates above is basically saying: "it's implementation defined as to exactly what concrete representation is used to convey the infoset" for such schema documents. I think that's right, and I am reasonably happy with his proposed phrasing.
Received on Wednesday, 6 September 2006 01:13:44 UTC