[Bug 16777] Is the content model for override a sequence or a choice?

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16777

--- Comment #3 from C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> 2012-05-18 19:38:21 UTC ---
For the record:  

- An early version of the override proposal, at 

  https://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.b4767.200707.html

has a sequence both in the schema for schema documents and in the syntax
display (in section 4.2.3 of the proposal, now 4.2.5).  The description of that
proposal says that in the design illustrated by the wording proposal, override
resemble redefine, with some exceptions, one of which is:

    Only allow one <annotation> element as the first child. I believe this is a 
    better design; but we may want to change it to match the design for
<redefine>.

There is no trace in bug 4767 or in the IG archives of July and August 2007
that the editors ever actually sent this proposal to the WG.  Bug 4767 says
that on 3 August 2007 the WG assigned a disposition of LATER to that bug.

- The WG reopened bug 4767 in April 2008; proposal at 

  https://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.b4767.html

exhibits the contradiction between the syntax display in section 4 and the
schema for schema documents which is identified in the bug description (comment
0) of this bug.  The CVS logs do not show any changes in this area:  when the
proposal was dusted off, the content model was changed in the syntax display,
and neither the change history nor the editors' private email show any
discussion of the change.

The IG discussion of this revived proposal is in a thread beginning at

    https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2008May/0044.html

There is no explicit discussion of the change.  

- In the revised proposal, the mention of a difference in content model between
override and redefine has been dropped from the status section.  That, together
with the fact that a manual change was made to the schema dump file from which
the syntax displays are generated, suggests that the intent was to change the
syntax to agree with that of redefine, but that owing to an editorial slip the
syntax change was made only in part.

In sum, I think this is just an unfortunate consequence of the fact that we
have never been able to re-create the automatic generation of the syntax
displays from the schema for schema documents, owing to shortcomings in the
editorial production system and lack of resources for fixing those
shortcomings.

This examination of the history of the changes has persuaded me that the WG's
decision on this morning's call is correct, and that the schema for schema
documents should be changed, rather than the syntax display.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://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 Friday, 18 May 2012 19:38:25 UTC