5143 2007-10-08 16:06:42 +0000 small editorial changes section 3.8.4 2009-10-12 16:08:02 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Structures: XSD Part 1 1.1 only PC Windows XP CLOSED WONTFIX clarification cluster editorial, noFurtherAction P2 normal --- 1 johnarwe cmsmcq cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 17062 0 johnarwe 2007-10-08 16:06:42 +0000 3.8.4.1.3 All-groups "The set V(M) (the set of sequences ·locally valid· against M) is the set of sequences S which are in L(M) and which have a ·validation-path· in M. In effect, this means that if one of the Particles in M ·attributes· an element information item to a ·wildcard particle·, and a ·competing· Particle ·attributes· the same item to an ·element particle·, then the ·element particle· is used for validation." "if one of the Particles in M ·attributes· an element information item" just makes my head hurt. Earlier text had me expecting that a path P would attribute (match) a particle with an element. Little bits of data (particles) behaving as actors (attributing things) ...ow, my head. 28196 1 cmsmcq 2009-10-10 01:08:03 +0000 In August and September 2009 the XML Schema working group performed triage on the remaining open issues in a WBS poll [1], whose results are summarized at [2] and accepted formally at [3]. In the course of that triage we decided, with some regret, to close this issue without further action. We just aren't going to get this done in the time available to us, and we do not believe the issue is critical enough to warrant delaying the spec to address it. The WG did discuss the possibility of changing the verb 'attribute' and related terms to use some other root (bind, associate, aver, ascribe, ...), but we could not find anything that appealed to us enough to make us want to go through the exercise of explaining that the constraint formerly known as UPA (Unique Particle Attribution) had a new name, and so on. John, as the originator of this issue, I must ask you to signal your agreement with (or at least, I hope, your acquiescence in) this disposition of the comment, by closing the issue. Or, if need be, to signal your unwilling to accept this disposition, by reopening it and explaining what it would take to satisfy you. If we don't hear from you in two weeks, we'll assume you're willing to live with this result. [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/19482/200908CRissues/ [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-wg/2009Sep/0005.html [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2009Sep/att-0005/2009-09-11telcon.html#item04 (all links member-only)