- From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 12:25:38 -0700
- To: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson)
- Cc: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
On Mar 11, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Henry S. Thompson wrote: > > C. M. Sperberg-McQueen writes: > >> Then I guess that at some point you will make a proposal to the >> WG that 12184 be re-opened, so we can discuss whether we >> will or won't reopen it. > > In this connection, rereading the status quo section 4.2.5 [1], I am > struck by a apparent (?) contradiction between the newly added text, > beginning "If the above definition is naively translated. . ." (now > the first real Note after the override element tableau) and the _last_ > (third) Note after the definition of *target set*, which appears to > _also_ be intended to address to the problem of circular chains of > overrides. > > The latter appears to say that only vacuous chains, i.e. those with no > effective overriding children, are allowed. I don't see that appearance; can you provide a bit more detail? If the words are capable of such an interpretation, then they need to be changed so they aren't capable of that interpretation, but I can't see how to do that if I can't see how to wring that interpretation out of them. I believe the decision record is clear on what the WG intended the text to mean (or at least, I hope so). See, for example, the discussions of cyclic include and cyclic override in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2009Jan/0053.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2009Jan/0054.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2009Jan/0058.html which are pointed to from WG discussion in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2009Jan/0004.html > Whether the crucial part > of the text here is normative or not can only be determined by looking > at the markup This seems to be a damning indictment of the stylesheets we've been using for some time, or would if it seemed unclear to me. But in my browser (Safari), the layout makes clear at a glance that the note in question has three paragraphs. Does your display show you something different, or are you just not certain, looking at the page, that notes are indented and normative text not part of a list is not indented? Of course, I'm making the foolish assumption that I know what passage you mean by "the crucial part of the text here", so before we go further I'll ask which part of the text you mean. > -- which reveals that it is not. > > So I'm left thinking we have two non-normative statements which give > not (obviously) compatible advice to implementors as to how they are > supposed to implement the joint recursion specifed by *Schema > Representation Constraint: Override Constraints and Semantics* and > *Schema Representation Constraint: Inclusion Constraints and > Semantics*, without risking non-termination on such inputs. > > Happy to be proved wrong. . . My discussion of the note in question got a bit long, so I'm deleting it here and will send it in separate messages. Michael -- **************************************************************** * C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, Black Mesa Technologies LLC * http://www.blackmesatech.com * http://cmsmcq.com/mib * http://balisage.net ****************************************************************
Received on Friday, 11 March 2011 19:26:09 UTC