[Bug 6012] New: [schema11] inconsistencies in text

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6012

           Summary: [schema11] inconsistencies in text
           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


The following sets of passages either definitely are, or appear to be,
contradicting one another.

3.3.2 XML Representation of Element Declaration Schema Components
There are some subtle inconsistencies to be worked out.
- There is no equivalent to the two paragraphs in 3.3.2 starting with
"<element> corresponds to an element declaration," in 3.2.2 (Attributes),
although the rest seems to correspond.
- "<element>s within <schema> produce global element declarations;..." vs text
later in 3.3.2 on mapping rules that says "If the <element> element information
item has <schema> as its parent, it maps to an Element Declaration".  Note that
'global' was dropped.

3.3.2.1 Common Mapping Rules for Element Declarations - XML Mapping Summary
clause 2
"2 otherwise (the <alternative> has a test) a Type Alternative with the
following properties: Property {test} Value ·absent·."
vs 3.3.6.1 Element Declaration Properties Correct clause 6
"6 If E.{type table} exists, then for each Type Alternative in E.{type
table}.{alternatives}, the {test} property is not ·absent·. "
3.3.2.1's tableau seems to say there is a "default type definition", i.e. if
the final <alternative> has no @test.
3.3.6.1 seems to be saying that case is always INvalid.

3.1.1 Components and Properties
"Equality of components for the purposes of this specification is always
defined as equality of names (including target namespaces) within symbol
spaces."
vs 1.5 Documentation Conventions and Terminology
'For components C1 and C2, an expression..."C1 = C2" means that C1 and C2 are
identical,...'
I *think* these two are actually OK, but probably only because 'identical' is
not well-defined.  If it were, it would likely based on context
be defined as having recursively equal properties, in which case we are no
longer talking about simple <ns,name,symspace> equality.
It would essentially be (3.17.5.1 Schema Information)  item isomorphic

4.2.4 Overriding component definitions
Schema Representation Constraint: Override Constraints and Semantics clause
4.1.2
"4.1.2  The <override> element ... inclusion is handled as described in ...
(<include>) (§4.2.2). "
I think you want me to read the "If...resolves" in <include> clause 1 as being
constrained by 4.2.4 clause 1 (MUST resolve if not vacuous).
I'm not sure you have actually forced this for all language lawyers.  It seems
like I could take your constraints as a recipe for execution, i.e. I execute
<override> clause 1 (URI resolves), eventually come down to <override> clause
4.1.2, as part of its execution I call <include> clause 1 (URI no longer
resolves), and that's just fine by the letter of what you wrote it appears.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2008 14:25:22 UTC