[Bug 6014] New: [schema11] normative text problems

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6014

           Summary: [schema11] normative text problems
           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 - deprecated
from: although some processors may choose to issue
to  : although some processors MAY choose to issue

3.12.3 Constraints on XML Representations of Type Alternatives
"No <alternative>  element may have more than one of these, and each must have
at least one of these. "
No...MAY seems destined to be mis-read.  Feels like it wants to be a MUST (have
at most one), prefer this, or MUST NOT (have >1)

4.2.1 Conditional inclusion
"Where they appear, the attributes vc:minVersion and vc:maxVersion are treated
... then the element on which the attribute appears is to be ignored"
Does anyone really think describing things in terms of what it's not (i.e.
negatively) is better than positively?
Realizing where you are in the process, since I think this IS correct as stated
(though it took several passes for me to catch the not's and un-'s I missed the
first time), I'd settle for a non-normative summary stated in the "include if"
positive sense.

4.2.2 Assembling a schema <include> clause 1
"It is not an error for the ·actual value· of the schemaLocation [attribute] to
fail to resolve at all, in which case the corresponding inclusion must not be
performed."
why maintain this unpleasant dark corner, if redefine and override etc all want
to mandate resolution?
is this just FUD masquerading as backward compatibility, or are there
well-known concrete scenarios that depend on this behavior?

4.2.4 Overriding component definitions
Schema Representation Constraint: Override Constraints and Semantics clause
4.1.1, 4.2.1
"Let D2' be a <schema> information item obtained by . Then ..." ??? something
missing 'by .'

4.2.4 Overriding component definitions
Schema Representation Constraint: Override Constraints and Semantics clause
4.1.2
"Note: One effect of the rule just given..." I cannot tell, due to previous
comment's missing text 

4.2.4 Overriding component definitions
Schema Representation Constraint: Override Constraints and Semantics clause
4.1.2
"Note: Another effect is..."  You handle A <override> B <override> C
It's not clear if there is deterministic behavior in the Y case: both B and C
<override> A with conflicting specifications.
<include> clause 3.1.2 in particular, if 2.1 fires, seems to tell me I cannot
"build up" a ns with components from several non-overlapping <schema>
items...since I think this is possible today, not convinced I'm reading it
right.
It also sounds like it prescribes an order of processing, but I had the
impression that different orders were permissible (lazy retrieval strategies)
which seems to conflict with that impression.

5.2 Assessing Schema-Validity - strict 
..."if they do not identify any declaration or definition, then no
schema-validity assessment is performed. "
This appears to say that the result is implementation-dependent.  I rather
expected some prescribed output, either an error or values for [validation
attempted] etc.


-- 
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 14:29:46 UTC