- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:53:54 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3220 ------- Comment #5 from cmsmcq@w3.org 2008-02-12 22:53 ------- At last month's face to face meeting, the working group agreed on a direction for resolving bug 5293 which involves a slight change to the categorization of errors and to the story outlined here in comment #1. In connection with that decision, it's clear that the wording does need to be revisited both in part 1 and in part 2. So I fear that I must answer the implicit question in comment #4 by saying "Of course this change should affect both part 1 and part 2; the alternative is to have the two specs using fundamental terms like 'must' and 'error' in pointlessly different ways." The formulations criticized in the bug description are not quite the same in Structures and in Datatypes; Structures appears not to contain any definition of 'error'; the principle that in the presence of errors all bets are off is enunciated not in a definition of the term 'error' but in section 5.1. For what it's worth, I do not understand the remarks about section 2.4 in comment #2. The proposal appears to be either (a) that there is no need to talk about the relation of the concept "error" and the concept "conforming schema document" at all, or (b) that wherever that relation is clarified, it ought not to be clarified in section 2.4 of Structures. Proposition (b) may be true, or may not; either way, it seems premature to worry about where the clarification should be made. Proposition (a) amounts to saying that we should continue to use the terms "conformance" and "error" without clarifying how they relate to each other; this seems to me too harebrained an idea to merit discussion. On the question of allowing processors to correct errors silently (as long, presumably, as their documentation does not contain any claim that silent processing amounts to an assurance that the schema documents processed were OK), the idea seems to run directly counter to the sense of the working group when the issue was discussed in Redmond. It also seems to run directly counter to the idea of interoperability among schema processors. But there seem to be rather different ideas in the WG about what the word "interoperability" means.
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2008 22:54:03 UTC