This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
3.8.6 Constraints on Model Group Schema Components, Schema Component Constraint: Element Declarations Consistent from: "If the {particles} contains, either directly, indirectly " to: "If {particles} contains, either directly, indirectly " twice...first line under heading, and first line after item 4 3.8.6 Constraints on Model Group Schema Components, Schema Component Constraint: Unique Particle Attribution first 2 notes indented too far 3.9.4.1 Principles of Validation against Particles from: "(Language Recognition for Repetitions (§3.9.4.1 )) describes how " to: "(Language Recognition for Repetitions (§3.9.4.1.1)) describes how " 3.11.1 The Identity-constraint Definition Schema Component from the heading through the unordered list, there are a number of instances of "identity-constraint definition" in mid-sentence with an initial capital I, ie "Identity-constraint definition". Change to lower case i. I counted 4 spots. 3.11.1 The Identity-constraint Definition Schema Component "{fields} specifies XPath expressions relative to each element selected by a {selector}. This must identify a single node" "This" is ambiguous. Assuming I am right in thinking you meant it to refer to {fields} not {selector}... from: "This must" to: "Each {field} Xpath expression property record must" 3.11.4 Identity-constraint Definition Validation Rules "Note: The use of [schema actual value]..." indentation makes it look like it applies to 4.3. I think it applies to 3, recommend moving it in-line. If it is not moved, indent left by a smaller amount. 3.13.1 The Assertion Schema Component, bullet #4, remove final period (1 of 2 currently there) 3.13.6, Schema Component Constraint: Test Value OK, item 4 "production" occurs 2x sequentially, remove 1 3.15.1 The Annotation Schema Component "A sequence of Element infoitems" from: "infoitems" to: "information items" _3_ times - 2x elements, 1x attributes
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'.
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). It makes most, but not all, of the changes suggested; the status section lists the changes not made and gives some indication why not. Those interested in this issue are encouraged to review the proposal and to comment on it if they wish.
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.
You missed this change: 3.15.1 The Annotation Schema Component "A sequence of Element infoitems" from: "infoitems" to: "information items" _3_ times - 2x elements, 1x attributes
W.r.t. comment #4 on "infoitem" ==> "information item". This is slightly puzzling, since I remember clearly making the necessary change. The current version of the status-quo document, on the other hand, at http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.html (member-only link), does show the correction. The text in question is generated in part by the stylesheets, so the change was to the stylesheets, not to the XML source. Examining the file history on the server, I speculate that the latest version of the wording proposal was created using an out of date copy of the stylesheets, so that it does not show the correction. But it has in fact been taken care of. Thank you for checking.
all fine then