[Bug 6012] [schema11] inconsistencies in text

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


Sandy Gao <sandygao@ca.ibm.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
           Keywords|                            |resolved
         Resolution|                            |FIXED




--- Comment #3 from Sandy Gao <sandygao@ca.ibm.com>  2009-04-03 17:23:55 ---
During its 2009-03-20 and 2009-04-03 telecons, the schema WG discussed comments
raised in this bug report and adopted the following resolutions.

Some of the proposed changes can be found at (member-only):
  http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.omni.20090313.html

With these changes, the WG believes that the issue raised in this bug report is
fully addressed. I'm marking this RESOLVED accordingly.

John, as the persons who opened and reopened this issue, if you would indicate
your concurrence with or dissent from the WG's disposition of the comment by
closing or reopening the issue, we'll be grateful. If we don't hear from you in
the next two weeks, we'll assume that silence implies consent.

> 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.

Equivalent paragraphs added to 3.2.2.

> - "<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.

Added "global" in 3.3.2. (Not shown in the above link.)

> 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.

No change was made for this comment.

At the syntax level, the last <alternative> element in schema documents may or
may not have a "test" attribute. If it does, then it maps to one of the {type
table}.{alternatives}. If it doesn't, then it maps to {type table}.{default
type definition}. As a result, {type table}.{alternatives} always have a {test}
property (to satisfy 3.3.6.1).

Note that the rule in 3.3.6.1 applies to schema components, not schema
documents, and it applies to {type table}.{alternatives}, and not {type
table}.{default type definition}.

> 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

Dropped the sentence in 3.1.1, as it causes confusion and isn't actually used.

> 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.

<override> has been changed so that the same changes (as specified by
<override>) are applied to not only the document being overridden directly, but
also documents it includes/overrides. Consider the case where A overrides B
includes C. After applying the transformation to the "override", it becomes A
includes B' overrides C. After transforming the new "override", it becomes A
includes B' includes C'.

Because "B includes C" was allowed to not resolve, we do not want to require
that "B' overrides C" to resolve. WG decided to drop clause 1 from the
<override> section (which requires schema location resolution for non-empty
<override>), to make it align better with <include>.


-- 
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 Friday, 3 April 2009 17:24:06 UTC