[Bug 6012] [schema11] inconsistencies in text

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


John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|FIXED                       |




--- Comment #4 from John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>  2009-04-06 12:31:58 ---
(In reply to comment #3)

> Some of the proposed changes can be found at (member-only):

"Some"??  So you're asking me, and the wg, to say whether or not the omnibus
addresses the issues raised in this bug w/o seeing all of the related changes? 
In the words of Monty Python: that's odd ... and a bit suspect I think.

> 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

Given the 1 hr/week frequency of SML wg meetings at the moment, I am unsure
that the wg will respond w/in 2 weeks.

> Equivalent paragraphs added to 3.2.2.

I'm not seeing them at the URI provided.  No highlighting in 3.2.2, and a skim
for the first few words + search for "global" does not find them either.

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

I'm willing to believe :-)

> > 3.3.2.1 Common Mapping Rules for Element Declarations - XML Mapping Summary
> > clause 2
> No change was made for this comment.

ok

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

Still in the draft of the URI provided.

> 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>.
> 

Still in the draft of the URI provided, although your explanation makes sense
insofar that it provides better internal consistency.  It's unfortunate that
the "may not resolve" nature of <include> is what we have to be consistent with
(that's a visceral statement, not an implementation-based one).

Based on what I do/don't see (mostly the latter) at the URI provided, I see
little point in asking the SML wg if they are satisfied with these changes.  I
think I would be satisfied with them once visible in a draft, i.e. the
resolutions themselves seem ok, but until a draft showing them in situ is
visible I would not personally be comfortable signing off on them.


-- 
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 Monday, 6 April 2009 12:32:08 UTC