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 5137 - small editorial changes sections 0-2
Summary: small editorial changes sections 0-2
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Structures: XSD Part 1 (show other bugs)
Version: 1.1 only
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P4 minor
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL:
Whiteboard: editorial cluster
Keywords: resolved
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2007-10-08 14:37 UTC by John Arwe
Modified: 2008-03-20 13:49 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description John Arwe 2007-10-08 14:37:40 UTC
status
"These changes may help minimize confusion between the assertions defined here and the assert and report elements of Schematron, which can still be used in <appinfo> elements, or separately."
to: "These changes may help minimize confusion between the assertions defined here and Schematron's assert and report elements.  The XSDL assertions facility and Schematron can be used together or independently."

1.1 Introduction to Version 1.1
"including the XML transfer syntax for schemas itself."
no idea what you are talking about with XML transfer syntax 

1.2 Purpose
"The purpose of XML Schema Definition Language: Structures is to define the nature of !! and their component parts,"
fix !!

2.2 XSDL Abstract Data Model
"There are 14 kinds of component" counting bullets I get 15.

2.2 XSDL Abstract Data Model
"The name [Definition:]  Component covers all the different kinds of component defined"
All occurrences of "component" between the definition of "schema component" and this point should be changed to "schema component", or this definition should be moved to immediately follow the def for "schema component".  In either case, "kinds of component" in this def should be changed to "kinds of schema component" so the definition is not recursive.

2.2 XSDL Abstract Data Model
from: "they are not independent of their context"
to:   "they are       dependent on their context"
Comment 1 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2007-10-23 15:22:41 UTC
Note that the !! error in section 1.2 has also been pointed out by
Elliotte Rusty Harold in email to the XML Schema comments list
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2007JulSep/0087.html).

When this issue is resolved, he should be notified as well as John
Arwe.

Comment 2 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2008-02-04 16:17:25 UTC
In an effort to make better use of Bugzilla, we are going to use the
'severity' field to classify issues by perceived difficulty.  This 
bug is getting severity=minor to reflect the existing whiteboard note
'easy'. 
Comment 3 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2008-03-08 01:00:07 UTC
A wording proposal intended to resolve this issue was sent to the XML Schema
WG on 7 March 2008.
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.omni-200803b.html
(member-only link).  Those interested in this issue may review the proposal
and are invited to comment on it.
Comment 4 Sandy Gao 2008-03-17 20:47:44 UTC
At its telcon on 2008-03-14, the XML Schema WG adopted the wording proposal at http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.omni-200803b.html (member-only link), and believes this issue now to be resolved.  

John, please let us know if you agree with this resolution of your issue, by adding a comment to the issue record and changing the Status of the issue to Closed. Or, if you do not agree with this resolution, please add a comment explaining why. If you wish to appeal the WG's decision to the Director, then also change the Status of the record to Reopened. If you wish to record your dissent, but do not wish to appeal the decision to the Director, then change the Status of the record to Closed. If we do not hear from you in the next two weeks, we will assume you agree with the WG decision.
Comment 5 John Arwe 2008-03-19 18:02:44 UTC
Looks mahvelous.

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5137#c1 notes that another party found the !! issue, and should be notified when fixed, but I see no evidence that this has already been done.  Might want to simply cc him on this bug, if not already handled out of band.
Comment 6 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2008-03-19 21:17:48 UTC
For the record Elliotte Harold has been notified in email archived at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2008JanMar/0452.html
(public link).  It seemed simpler than making a Bugzilla login for him, to 
enable him to be cc'd.