[Bug 6012] [schema11] inconsistencies in text

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





--- Comment #6 from John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>  2009-04-07 13:20:20 ---
(In reply to comment #5 (for URI value) and comment #3 (for list of changes)),
and replying for now strictly on my own behalf since the SML wg has not yet
been consulted...

> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.omni.20090320.html

3.2.2: I think you need to read the added text again carefully and look
especially at any place you use "element".  They look very much like cases of
copy & (missed) tweak.

3.3.2: just before the unrelated add of "global", and after GED has been
defined, you use the phrase "For complete declarations, top-level or local,"
(top-level vs global).  I'd suggest you replace top-level with global unless
there is some contextual reason not to (and this is merely a suggestion; I give
the wg and editors full license to ignore or heed it with no further tracking
back to me).

> Dropped the sentence in 3.1.1, as it causes confusion and isn't actually used.
While it may be true that dropping the sentence removes the inconsistency,
doing so also gives less reinforcement for the meaning of "identical" in 1.5. 
"Identical" is in turn used to define the meaning of a fairly central notation.
 My sense is that the intent of "identical" was in fact quite similar to the
(more precise and explicit) definition of "item isomorphic"; if that is the
case, I would encourage some linkage to be drawn (even the dreaded forward
reference).  If the wg is comfortable as it stands in the omnibus draft, I can
live with that as well.  While I see some room for misinterpretation or
ambiguity, I think the actual probability of that leading to competing and
conflicting assertions grounded securely in the spec is small.

On the rest, covered earlier, I'm ok with the wg's decisions.


-- 
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, 7 April 2009 13:20:35 UTC