4902 2007-08-01 01:58:00 +0000 What kinds of things can conform to XSDL? 2007-08-03 18:29:32 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Structures: XSD Part 1 1.0/1.1 both Macintosh All RESOLVED LATER P2 normal --- 1 cmsmcq cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 15995 0 cmsmcq 2007-08-01 01:58:00 +0000 The structures spec uses the verb "conform" and related terms, including the conformance-related verbs MUST, MAY, and SHOULD, both of software (many passages speak of conforming processors) and of schema documents. But the conformance section does not mention schema documents or specify exactly what the conformance criteria for schema documents are. It should. The spec also uses "conformance" and related terms to describe a sometimes bewildering array of other kinds of thing (processing, strings, tokens) and speaks of strings and values "conforming" to simple types (instead of strings being members of the lexical space, and values members of the value space, of the type). These confusing usages should be cleared up. A separate bug report concerns the use of conformance language applied to XML instance documents. 16038 1 cmsmcq 2007-08-03 18:29:32 +0000 On its telcon today, the Working Group discussed this and other recently opened issues in the issues database and concluded (not without some pangs of regret) that for scheduling reasons it is not feasible for us to resolve this issue, or any of the others in the group, before we go to Last Call. On whether the issue / proposal discussed here is worth pursuing or not, the WG has taken no formal decision. Accordingly I am closing this issue with a disposition of LATER, not WONTFIX. That means the Working Group believes that the issue may be resolved in some future version of the spec, and encourages whatever Working Groups are responsible for future versions of the spec to consider this issue at an appropriate time. (If this bug relates both to 1.0 and 1.1, this resolution applies only to 1.1 and leaves undetermined how to handle it vis-a-vis 1.0.)