[Bug 11716] Identity constraints: grammatical typo

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11716

--- Comment #4 from C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> 2011-01-11 15:32:59 UTC ---
Background information (i.e. no proposal yet):

In re comment 2:  speaking for myself, the replacement of the term "node set" 
with the term "node sequence" does not seem to me to be unmotivated; the term
"node set" in XPath 1.0 is a bit of a misnomer, since the nodes are sequenced,
and the term "node set" is no longer used in the version of XPath to which XSD
normatively refers.  My personal view is that many more occurrences of 'set'
ought to have been replaced here by current terminology, but the WG decided
otherwise.

I also cannot find the phrase "a node sequence one of whose members" in the
status-quo text of clause 3 of the constraint; are we looking at the same
version of the document?  Or is Henry suggesting, in comment 2, that the scope
of the issue be broadened from clause 3 to clause 4, or to some larger area of
the text?

Looking at clause 4, the definition of qualified node set changes from 

    the subset of the ·target node set· for which all the {fields} 
    evaluate to a node-set with exactly one member which is 
    an element or attribute node with a simple type

to

    the subset of the ·target node set· consisting of those nodes 
    for which all the {fields} evaluate to a node sequence one of 
    whose members is an element or attribute node with a 
    ·non-absent· [schema actual value]

The change to clause 4 was made to resolve bug 5781 and was approved 17 April
2009; see discussion in bug 5781 and in the April 2009 archive.

The subject/verb agreement problem and the ambiguous reference to "those
node-sets" in clause 3 were introduced in XSD 1.0 and were apparently not
caught (or were thought clear) when this constraint was revised.

-- 
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, 11 January 2011 15:33:01 UTC