- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 23:58:04 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6010 --- Comment #3 from C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@w3.org> 2008-09-02 23:58:04 --- John, thank you for the feedback. If I read them correctly, your responses on the various priority-feedback requests range from vigorous approval of the change on which the XSD 1.1 spec requests feedback to 'this could bite some unwary schema authors, but I have no strong objection' (i.e. no stop-the-presses unroll-this-change-right-now responses). W.r.t. 3.10.1, I believe the wording of the note relies heavily on the phrase 'the current complex type' being taken as short-hand for 'conteining complex type definition' and understood as denoting a schema component (i.e. an abstract object) rather than an XML element (which is, I guess, also an abstract object, but a different kind). The intent is indeed to include siblings which are inherited from the base type; they are present in the component, even if not present in the source declaration. If you can think of ways to recast this material to eliminate the apparent ambiguity or vagueness and avert the unintended reading, the editors and working group will be grateful for suggestions. W.r.t. 3.10.1 and the interaction of the not-in-schema wildcard with the underspecification of schema construction in XSD 1.0 and 1.1, your point is, I think, well taken. As you can see, however, other members of the working group believe that there is not really any difficulty in this area. -- 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 23:58:37 UTC