- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 12 Dec 2000 11:44:16 +0000
- To: "Jeff Rafter" <jeffrafter@earthlink.net>
- Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
"Jeff Rafter" <jeffrafter@earthlink.net> writes:
> > > Good point -- I used it because you suggested it! Other suggestions?
>
> > Sorry, yes I did suggest it. I was confused with the separation
> > of schema error checking with instance validation. How about
> > "complete" and "limited"?
>
> Perhaps a more helpful definition in the long run would include an
> indication of what exactly "complete" or "limited" meant. I think they are
> good descriptions but could see confusion when a colleague asks, "Is that
> schema complete, yet?" or the equally confusing response, "Yes, but it is
> still somewhat limited." Instead maybe "resolved" or "fully resolved" and
> "unresolved" would be better choices. I don't think these choices are
> exactly what I am searching for but it gives a better indication to the
> implication. If any part of an XML schema is unresolved it is "not fully
> resolved", or something similar.
I like it -- "completely resolved" vs. "not completely resolved".
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
Received on Tuesday, 12 December 2000 06:44:21 UTC