W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > October to December 2008

[Bug 5164] validation vs assessment

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 20:22:32 +0000
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1KwjSy-00008Z-Pa@farnsworth.w3.org>


Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |mike@saxonica.com

--- Comment #7 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>  2008-11-02 20:22:32 ---
I would like to throw another problem into the arena here, namely the word
"local" as in "local validity" or "locally valid". It's not really made clear
what this means.

2.1 gives the impression that "local validity" is contrasted with "overall
validity", where (loosely) an element is locally valid if its attributes and
child elements appear where they are allowed to appear (*), and is overall-ly
valid if the content of those elements and children are also (locally and
overall-ly valid).

But this distinction isn't carried through. There are many confusing uses. For
example, in rule 3.2, we read "If T is a complex type definition, then
E is ·valid· with respect to T  as per Element Locally Valid (Complex Type)
(§;". But when we follow the link, we find that doesn't tell us
what it means for an element E to be ·valid· with respect to a type T; rather
it tells us what it means to be "locally ·valid·" (sic: not ·locally valid·).
The reader is expected to know that ·valid· and "locally ·valid·" in this case
are synonyms. There are many other such cases.

I think it would help to change many (perhaps most) uses of "·valid·" and
"locally ·valid·" to "·locally valid·" with an appropriate definition.

(*) another glitch is that local validity includes checking of assertions,
which may involve looking at the content: so it can't be said that local
validity depends only on the sequence of element names and the set of attribute
names that appear.

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 Sunday, 2 November 2008 20:22:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:09:12 UTC