[Bug 5078] define required components

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5078





------- Comment #4 from xan.gregg@jmp.com  2008-05-20 17:45 -------
The entire paragraph I excerpted from is (from 1.1):

    ·Assessment· is defined with reference to an ·XSDL schema·
    (note not a ·schema document·) which consists of (at a minimum)
    the set of schema components (definitions and declarations)
    required for that ·assessment·. This is not a circular definition,
    but rather a post facto observation: no element information item
    can be fully assessed unless all the components required by any
    aspect of its (potentially recursive) ·assessment· are present
    in the schema.

I would prefer just:

    ·Assessment· is defined with reference to an ·XSDL schema·
    (note not a ·schema document·).

Then you can elaborate or point elsewhere to explanations that assessment can
be full, partial, or none (or is "error" now an option, too?).

In the quoted 1.1 text, the first sentence is about assessment proper, and the
second sentence attempts to explain the first sentence but appeals informally
to a different concept: full assessment.

Regarding the "Notes on undischarged references", my only concern for this bug
was about things like lax wildcards rather than undischarged references, but I
welcome clarifications in that area. Without the clarification I would treat
undischarged references as errors preventing any PSVI generation.

I'm not able to analyze the details of the paper, but I will note that I find
the phrase "“required” within the meaning of section 4.1" confusing because of
the aforementioned duality. I don't know if you mean required for assessment or
required for full assessment.

Received on Tuesday, 20 May 2008 17:45:55 UTC