Re: [Bug 4470] Editorial work in "Attribute Locally Valid (Use)"

I've mentioned this on another list, but I find sentences along the lines 
of:

    "The item's ·actual value· matches the {value} of the {value 
constraint},
    if it is present and its {variety} is fixed."

make my brain do summersaults.  I guess I haven't spent enough time 
programming in Perl, but I find it easier to set the context and then 
explain what has to be satisfied in that context, rather than saying what 
has to be satisfied, and then specifying the context.

What is the prospect of re-wording sentences like the above to be:

    "If the item has a {value constraint} and its {variety} is fixed, then 
the
    item's ·actual value· matches the {value} of the {value constraint}."

Or with the other text option:

    "For an attribute information item to be ·valid· with respect to an 
attribute
    use that has a {value constraint}with {variety} fixed, the item's 
·actual value·
    must be identical to the {value} of the attribute use's {value 
constraint}."

Although these changes seem trivial, I think they would remove a lot of low 
level detail induced noise that you get while trying to interpret the schema 
spec, and the reader would be able to then allocate more mental resources on 
understanding the bigger issues.

If the notion were to be entertained, what would be the procedure?  Would it 
require some one to go through the text and suggest alternative wording?

Thanks and Seasons Greetings to you all,

Pete Cordell
Codalogic
Visit http://www.codalogic.com/lmx/
for XML Schema to C++ data binding

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
To: <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 9:37 PM
Subject: [Bug 4470] Editorial work in "Attribute Locally Valid (Use)"


>
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4470
>
>
>
>
>
> ------- Comment #1 from cmsmcq@w3.org  2007-12-20 21:37 -------
> Cf. bug 3963
>
>

Received on Friday, 21 December 2007 10:23:49 UTC