[Bug 6012] [schema11] inconsistencies in text

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


C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com
           Keywords|resolved                    |needsReview




--- Comment #7 from C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>  2009-04-13 01:52:48 ---
A wording proposal intended to resolve the remaining issues of
this bug report is now on the server at 

  http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.b6012b.html
  (member-only link)

and awaits WG action.

Further comments on individual items:

> 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.

Fixed.  Thanks.

> 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).

I understand SG to be trying (against some resistance from the
spec) to use 'top-level' consistently to refer to source-level
element declarations which are children of 'schema' (or
'redefine' or 'override') and 'global' to refer to components
which have global scope.  Since the two classes correspond to
each other, the terms are sometimes used interchangeably and
he's fighting an uphill battle.

I've recast the paragraph to try to make it easier for
non-theologians to tell when it's talking about source
declarations and when it's talking about ocmponents.

>> 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.

I think it would be saying too much to say that the WG is
"comfortable" with the treatment of component identity in either
XSD 1.0 or XSD 1.1, but the chances of changing the situation
appear remote.  I won't go into details; let's just say the WG
has spent some time trying to agree on questions related to
component identity, and after a while the chair concluded that
these discussions were unlikely to lead to consensus within the
time frame envisaged for the completion of XSD 1.1.

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

Thank you.


-- 
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, 13 April 2009 01:52:58 UTC