- From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:38:39 -0600
- To: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
On 26 Oct 2009, at 09:33 , bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org wrote:
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5156
>
>
>
>
>
> --- Comment #9 from John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com> 2009-10-26
> 15:33:15 ---
> So I can explain this correctly to the SML wg, am I correct in
> thinking that
> the wording proposal in comment 7 handles the issues raised in
> comment 4 in the
> following ways?
>
>> If PSC is such a horrid phrase, someone will have to explain to me/
>> us the
>> existence of "3.9.1 The Particle Schema Component"
> no response
The change originally requested has been made; section 3.9.2 now
carries the title XML Representation of Particle Schema Components.
>> to : is prohibited.
> no change made (looking the wording proposal, fwiw I'd agree with
> "no change")
Correct. Section 1.5 defines "E has Att = Value" as short-hand for
"there is an attribute information item among the [attribute uses]
of E, whose expanded name matches the expanded name 'Att' and
whose actual value is Value", which means the WG can sometimes (not
always) be persuaded to use a quarter of a line of text where two
and a half lines would do as well. But 'is' benefits from no such
definition.
>
>> to : what would have been an {attribute use}
> no change made
Correct. {attribute use} is not the name of a property, and
'would have been a member of {attribute uses}' did not seem to
be an improvement.
>
>> to : had not specified
> no change made
Correct.
>> (still on 3.2.2) Here is how I am reading it, in case I'm wildly
>> wrong again.
>> I might be tempted to add something like this to the new 3.2.2 text.
>> "In other words, the case where the {base type definition} T
>> allowed the
>> {attribute use} but the restriction prohibits it."
> note added, wording amended in comment 8
Right.
>> 2.1.3 I prefer KISS to fancy writing when things are this complex.
> no change made
No, the sentence was recast. The recasting did not take the form
you suggested, but it seemed less prone to the ambiguity I understood
you to be pointing out.
--
****************************************************************
* C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, Black Mesa Technologies LLC
* http://www.blackmesatech.com
* http://cmsmcq.com/mib
* http://balisage.net
****************************************************************
Received on Monday, 26 October 2009 16:39:14 UTC