This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 4902 - What kinds of things can conform to XSDL?
Summary: What kinds of things can conform to XSDL?
Status: RESOLVED LATER
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Structures: XSD Part 1 (show other bugs)
Version: 1.0/1.1 both
Hardware: Macintosh All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2007-08-01 01:58 UTC by C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Modified: 2007-08-03 18:29 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2007-08-01 01:58:00 UTC
The structures spec uses the verb "conform" and related
terms, including the conformance-related verbs MUST, MAY,
and SHOULD, both of software (many passages speak of
conforming processors) and of schema documents.

But the conformance section does not mention schema documents
or specify exactly what the conformance criteria for
schema documents are.  It should.

The spec also uses "conformance" and related terms to
describe a sometimes bewildering array of other kinds of
thing (processing, strings, tokens) and speaks of 
strings and values "conforming" to simple types (instead
of strings being members of the lexical space, and
values members of the value space, of the type).  These
confusing usages should be cleared up.

A separate bug report concerns the use of conformance language
applied to XML instance documents.
Comment 1 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2007-08-03 18:29:32 UTC
On its telcon today, the Working Group discussed this and other
recently opened issues in the issues database and concluded (not
without some pangs of regret) that for scheduling reasons it is not
feasible for us to resolve this issue, or any of the others in the
group, before we go to Last Call.

On whether the issue / proposal discussed here is worth pursuing or
not, the WG has taken no formal decision. Accordingly I am closing
this issue with a disposition of LATER, not WONTFIX.  That means the
Working Group believes that the issue may be resolved in some future
version of the spec, and encourages whatever Working Groups are
responsible for future versions of the spec to consider this issue
at an appropriate time.  (If this bug relates both to 1.0 and 1.1,
this resolution applies only to 1.1 and leaves undetermined how to
handle it vis-a-vis 1.0.)