- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:31:30 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6193
Summary: clarify ##defined and ##sibling definitions
Product: XML Schema
Version: 1.1 only
Platform: Macintosh
OS/Version: Mac System 9.x
Status: ASSIGNED
Keywords: editorial, needsDrafting
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: Structures: XSD Part 1
AssignedTo: cmsmcq@w3.org
ReportedBy: cmsmcq@w3.org
QAContact: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
In bug 6010, John Arwe wrote:
3.10.1 The Wildcard Schema Component
"The keywords defined and sibling allow a kind of wildcard which matches only
elements not declared in the current schema ..."
Given that "schema" is, according to 2.1 which has the closest thing I could
find to a formal definition of this word, just a set of schema components,
I'm
not sure what the actual boundary for 'defined' is nor how interoperable its
definition really is. A schema processor is allowed to put almost literally
anything (extra, i.e. unused) into the schema (set of components) used for
assessment, no? If there was some concept of a "minimal schema", at say
schema document granularity, it might be clearer...of course then if someone
re-factors the documents, ymmv.
Conceptually I have no objection, I'm just not sure right now how wide its
net
casts.
3.10.1 The Wildcard Schema Component
"The keywords defined and sibling allow a kind of wildcard which matches only
elements not declared in the current schema ..."
Similar question for sibling. This is somewhat better defined than schema,
but the language seems loose. {ns constraint} clause 6 talks about the
containing type decl; here, I wonder if that should read very literally, or
to include all of what look like sibling elements in an instance but are
attributed to {base type definition} items, transitively.
Each of these paragraphs indicates a need for clarification. Editors to
draft suitable clarifications.
--
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 Thursday, 30 October 2008 16:31:40 UTC