[Bug 5149] normative format rfc2119 keywords used in non-normative notes

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5149

           Summary: normative format rfc2119 keywords used in non-normative
                    notes
           Product: XML Schema
           Version: 1.1 only
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows XP
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Structures: XSD Part 1
        AssignedTo: cmsmcq@w3.org
        ReportedBy: johnarwe@us.ibm.com
         QAContact: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org


1.5 Documentation Conventions and Terminology says in part: The following
highlighting is used for non-normative commentary in this document:
Note: General comments directed to all readers.  Within normative prose in this
specification, the words may, should, must and must not are defined as
follows:...

The qualification "Within normative prose" could be read to mean that when
H9.MUST etc occur w/in non-normative text that their meaning is undefined, or
that it reverts to its colloquial meaning.  In several Notes however the
context makes it appear that they are intending to assert normative
requirements, which (by virtue of 1.5 stating that Notes are non-normative) is
inconsistent.  If their use in non-normative notes is allowed, either they
should not be marked H9 or their interpretation should be explicitly declared
in 1.5.

This would have to be a global scrub.  The ones I noticed are enumerated below.
- 3.2.6, xsi: Not Allowed "but must not be declared."
- 3.11.5, identity constraint table PSVI contribution "conformant processors
may, but"
- 3.12.4, Type Alternative Validation Rules, "processors may issue a warning "
- 3.13.4, Assertion Validation Rules, "result of XPath evaluation must be"
- 3.13.4, Assertion Validation Rules, "case they should be mapped to float."

Received on Monday, 8 October 2007 17:21:03 UTC