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 5637 - inconsistencies in language for rule attachment to schema components
Summary: inconsistencies in language for rule attachment to schema components
Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME
Alias: None
Product: SML
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Core (show other bugs)
Version: LC
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
QA Contact: SML Working Group discussion list
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on: 5636
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2008-04-10 16:25 UTC by John Arwe
Modified: 2008-12-09 18:02 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description John Arwe 2008-04-10 16:25:08 UTC
As I read through 6.3 Rules Associated with Schema Components with my "unfamiliar outsider" hat on, I worry about the apparent (at least - might be real problem) inconsistencies about where the spec uses/omits the qualifier "global" when talking about elements and types.

6.3 defines {rules} for all (not just global) element decls and type defs.
6.3.1 says 
- sch:schema elements may be embedded ONLY in GLOBAL EDs/TDs.
- local-rules defined only for GED/GTD
- defines the value of {rules} for xs:anyType (not a GTD AFAIK)
- bullet 3 omits global
6.3.2 says
- bullet 1 echo's 6.3.1 1st "-" point above, i.e. ONLY GLOBALS
  It also specifically mentions anonymous types of GEDs, which seems "odd" given
  that they are mentioned nowhere else that I can find.
- bullet 2 omits global from type decl, includes it for element decl
6.3.3 says
- bullet 1 omits global

I think the wg has been clear enough in previous discussions that we understand the intent to be "only on GEDs and GTDs".  This is simply a question of whether or not the current text clearly and accurately communicates that intent.
Comment 1 Virginia Smith 2008-04-10 19:05:07 UTC
Discussed in 4/10 call:
MSM: xs:anyType is in fact a GTD
MSM: if we make any changes based on 5636, may need to hit the text for this bug.
Comment 2 John Arwe 2008-06-25 11:55:58 UTC
f2f consensus

while some members feel that naive readers might be confused by the apparent inconsistencies, the wg is confident that the existing language is correct, and no one is able to make a concrete proposal to reduce such confusion.