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 5262 - Incorrect link to S4SD
Summary: Incorrect link to S4SD
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: typo+ cluster
Keywords: editorial
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2007-11-12 10:20 UTC by Michael Kay
Modified: 2008-03-06 12:33 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Michael Kay 2007-11-12 10:20:55 UTC
The last call working draft (Part 1) has in the front matter a link whose visible text is "Independent copy of the schema for schema documents". This link takes you to http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema.xsd, which appears to be the 1.0 version of the S4S, and not a copy of the S4SD published as Appendix A.
Comment 1 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2008-02-04 16:17:23 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 2008-03-06 02:12:34 UTC
Thank you.  

I believe this has now been fixed, at least temporarily.  In the fresh 
copy of the status quo document now being generated, the link should 
correctly point to the version of the schema for schema documents published 
in the same directory as the spec itself.  (Special handling will be 
needed when the spec advances further and people begin expecting to see 
the schema for schema documents available by dereferencing the namespace 
name; I think that should be regarded as part of bug 1974.)

[Pause.]  [Long pause.]  [Really long pause, while I generate several
new status-quo documents, each failing to incorporate the fix.]

The new status quo document has been generated, and the link now, finally,
works for me, or seems to (but document maintainers are notoriously easy
to fool in such cases).  So I'm optimistically marking the issue RESOLVED.

Michael, if you could check to make sure the link works correctly for you,
and then close the issue (or not, if it's still broken), I'd be grateful.

[For the record:  the problem proved more difficult than expected to
fix in part because the editorial production system used an ad hoc Perl
program to perform entity expansion, and that program was not picking up
the correct entity definitions.  Brute force eventually won, once I figured
out where to apply it.]