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 5167 - misc editorial
Summary: misc editorial
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
: P2 minor
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL:
Whiteboard: editorial cluster
Keywords: editorial, resolved
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2007-10-09 13:16 UTC by John Arwe
Modified: 2009-07-24 17:02 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description John Arwe 2007-10-09 13:16:04 UTC
3.17.2.2 References to Schema Components from Elsewhere
refer to xpointer scheme, which has been abandoned.
technically legal perhaps since the ref is not normative, but probably easy to re-cast example to one of the "blessed" xptr schemes

G.1 Changes made since version 1.0, Complex type definitions (miscellaneous changes)
from: "are now forbidded to have different values"
to:   "are now forbidden to have different values"

G.1 Changes made since version 1.0, Changes to element declarations:
"Introduction of a special ·xsd:error· for use in"
missing word after xsd:error - is it an error code, property, component, ...?

G.1 Changes made since version 1.0, The process of validation:
"lax assessment was optional and did not require the validation of [children] or [attributes]."
should it be assessment of children or validation of attributes?

G.2 Issues not resolved
from: "it may be useful to mention Some points on which possible changes "
to:   "It may be useful to mention some points where    possible changes "

G.2 Issues not resolved
"edge cases remain which different conformant implementations will treat differently."
list those known, or point to a list

G.2 Issues not resolved
"new system of error codes was originally foreseen for XSDL 1.1, but has not been completed for inclusion here."
clarify if still intended or has been dumped in the Thames permanently

J Glossary (non-normative)
"valid
    the word valid and its derivatives are used to refer to clause 1 above, the determination of local schema-validity"
- There is no clause 1 above in this context.
- looked for various combinations of local schema-validity, none in glossary
Comment 1 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2008-02-04 16:17:22 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 2 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2008-03-22 14:41:04 UTC
During the teleconference of 21 March 2008, the XML Schema WG adopted
a wording proposal (the 'March 2008 omnibus proposal') which we
believe resolves some but not all of the issues raised in this bug
report.  The wording proposal can be seen at

  http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.omni-200803.html
  (member-only link)

The changes made address (we believe) all the items noted except for
three.  The following are NOT yet dealt with, so this bug is not being
marked RESOLVED but returned to 'needsDrafting':

  1 The reference to the XPointer scheme named xpointer() has not
    yet been revised, since it requires further research.

  2 The edge cases of schema composition, where current
    implementations behave differently, are not enumerated, mostly
    because the editors do not believe any reasonably comprehensive
    list now exists. The editors deny that they omitted this change
    because they find the topic too embarrassing.

  3 The definition of valid has not been modified; it is hoped that
    the resolution of bug 5164 will in passing repair the unsuitable
    reference to the otherwise anonymous "clause 1".

These changes may be made later, although 2 looks likely to require
more research and experimentation than the editors will have time for.

John, as the originator of the bug report, I hope that you will review
the changes made and let us know whether they satisfactorily address
the points they are intended to resolve.
Comment 3 John Arwe 2008-03-24 19:59:55 UTC
Status (optional, only needed if this actually matters to someone)
from: Two   changes suggested by the bug
to  : Three changes suggested by the bug

G.1 Changes made since version 1.0, Complex type definitions (miscellaneous
changes) - WAS changed correctly, although diff process did not flag it.

comment #2: "The following are NOT yet dealt with...2 The edge cases..."
Although the diff does not flag a change here, clearly one or more changes were made since a search for "edge" in appendix G fails.  Assuming for the moment that the comment was against what is now G.2 bullet 4, I'm satisfied w/ the change.

So, aside from the two that we agree are as yet unsolved, i.e. xptr and App J, looks mahvelous.
Comment 4 Sandy Gao 2009-05-08 16:46:27 UTC
During its 2009-05-08 telecon, the schema WG adopted a proposal to address comments on the XPointer references in this issue.

The proposal can be found at (member-only):
 
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.omni.20090508.html

Changes include:
1. Added references to SCD in the section about referencing schema components
2. Removed discussion about using xpointer() schema for schema component reference.
3. Updated references from XML Pointer to XPointer Framework specification.

These changes address one of the remaining comments in this bug report. The WG believes that the other issue about validation vs. assessment is better handled in bug 5164. I'm marking this RESOLVED accordingly.

John, as the persons who opened and reopened this issue, if you would indicate your concurrence with or dissent from the WG's disposition of the comment by closing or reopening the issue, we'll be grateful. If we don't hear from you in the next two weeks, we'll assume that silence implies consent.
Comment 5 John Arwe 2009-05-08 18:10:28 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
> 1. Added references to SCD in the section about referencing schema components

looks good

> 2. Removed discussion about using xpointer() schema for schema component

3.17.2.2 (ironically, the site of change 1 above) says fragments will not work.

The phrase containing change 2 now reads:
perhaps referenced using fragment and/or [XPointer] notation. 

This seems inconsistent with 3.17.2.2.  Re-opening to let that get attention.  If the editors decide that this is in fact correct, they have license to close this bug subsequently.

> 3. Updated references from XML Pointer to XPointer Framework specification.

looks good
Comment 6 Sandy Gao 2009-05-27 03:00:19 UTC
In response to comment #5:

> 3.17.2.2 (...) says fragments will not work.

I think this is referring to the following sentence in 3.17.2.2:

"This means that simple fragment identifiers using these names will not work to reference schema components from outside the context of schema documents."

Note that
1. It's not "fragments will not work", but "simple fragments using *names* (not IDs) will not work".
2. Fragments can be used to refer to schema components. See the last paragraph in 3.17.2.2.
3. This is only about references to schema components, and not schema documents.

> The phrase containing change 2 now reads:
> perhaps referenced using fragment and/or [XPointer] notation. 
>
> This seems inconsistent with 3.17.2.2.

The above cited sentence is in section 4.3.1, about how to locate schema documents (<xs:schema> elements). This is a different case from 3.17.2.2. Here <xs:schema> elements can be located using fragments.
Comment 7 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2009-07-15 21:30:58 UTC
On 8 May, the XML Schema WG adopted a proposal to resolve this issue; it is included in 

  http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.omni.20090508.html

The changes have now been integrated into the status-quo documents, so I am marking this issue resolved.  Note that one of the remaining items was pushed over into a different issue; for details see the minutes at 

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2009May/att-0008/2009-05-08telcon.html
  (member-only link)

John, as the originator of this comment, if you would inspect the changes made and signal your agreement or disagreement with the resolution of this issue by closing or re-opening the issue, in the now time-honored way, it would be helpful. If we do not hear otherwise from you in the next two weeks, we'll assume that you are content with the disposition of this bug report.  Thank you.