2742 2006-01-20 21:13:27 +0000 wd-14: Editorial note on section 5.2 2006-09-19 16:45:21 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Structures: XSD Part 1 1.1 only PC Windows XP CLOSED FIXED resolved P3 normal --- 1 holstege cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 7906 0 holstege 2006-01-20 21:13:27 +0000 There is a grammatical oddity (as well as a certain amount of obscurity) in a sentence in section 5.2 of Structures. I believe the sentence 3 The processor starts from Schema-Validity Assessment (Element) (3.3.4) with no stipulated declaration or definition, and either strict or lax assessment ensues, depending on whether or not the element information and the schema determine either an element declaration (by name) or a type definition (via xsi: type) or not. has one 'or not' too many. Quick fix: delete the first 'or not', yielding 3 The processor starts from Schema-Validity Assessment (Element) (3.3.4) with no stipulated declaration or definition, and either strict or lax assessment ensues, depending on whether the element information and the schema determine either an element declaration (by name) or a type definition (via xsi:type) or not. This has the drawback that it makes the decision about strict or lax assessment easier to misunderstand than it was before. I believe that what is meant is 3 The processor starts from Schema-Validity Assessment (Element) (3.3.4) with no stipulated declaration or definition. If the element information and the schema determine either an element declaration (by name) or a type definition (via xsi: type), then strict assessment is performed; otherwise, the element information item is validated with respect to the ur-type definition. If my understanding is correct, I offer the wording just above as a possible rewording of the rule. If my understanding is incorrect, I offer the wording just above as evidence of one way that a reasonably attentive reader can be led astray by the current wording. Editorial concerning Part 1 Assessing Schema-Validity Transition history raised on 2 Nov 2004 by C. M. Sperberg-McQueen (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/ Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2004OctDec/0015.html) agreed on 10 Dec 2004 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/ 2004Dec/0043.html) RESOLVED: to close issue wd-14 by accepting the second proposed wording. Acknowledgment cycle announced by group on 10 Dec 2004 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml- schema-ig/2004Dec/0043.html) agreement by reviewer on 10 Dec 2004 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c- xml-schema-ig/2004Dec/0043.html) Action history Part 1 Editors accepted on 10 Dec 2004 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/ 2004Dec/0043.html) Editors to adjust wording of the editorial note in section 5.2 of part 1 (the bit commented in in issue wd-14), using the second proposed wording. 11865 1 cmsmcq 2006-09-19 16:44:48 +0000 The wording adopted by the Working Group in 2004 (further modified) was introduced into the public working draft of 31 August 2006. Accordingly, this issue should be closed. 11866 2 cmsmcq 2006-09-19 16:45:21 +0000 As the originator of this issue, I confirm that I am satisfied with its resolution by the working group.