5194 2007-10-14 22:51:23 +0000 Editorial comments on section 3.4.2 2008-03-17 22:16:36 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Structures: XSD Part 1 1.1 only PC Windows XP CLOSED FIXED editorial cluster resolved P2 minor --- 1 mike cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 17202 0 mike 2007-10-14 22:51:23 +0000 (Note: it's very hard to describe the location of text fragments in this section with clarity! Table numbers, or something similar, would really help.) para 2 typo, missing space after first "}". In the XML Representation Summary, {prohibited substitutions}, "otherwise on the actual value", should "on" be "to"? In the Note, typo, missing space in "restriction orextension". In {assertions} the reference to the <restriction> and <extension> elements seems informal (in comparison with the equivalent in {annotations}), perhaps it should say "the <assert> element information items among the [children] of the <complexType> and among the [children] of the <restriction> and <extension> [children] of its <complexContent> or <simpleContent> (?) [children], if any, in order". Under "Complex Type Definition with complex content Schema Component": {content type} rule 1 (mixed), it's not clear that cases 1.1 and 1.2 are mutually exclusive. Should 1.2 be "otherwise, if..."? In the second of the three notes following the big table, that is, the "Note: Aside from the simple coherence requirements..." this sentence is VERY hard to parse. (If you make the mistake of reading "constraining" as "which constrain", then the verb "is" has no subject, and when you eventually discover this, you have to backtrack a long way to recover). The sentence "Careful consideration of the above concrete syntax reveals " seems to add little. Even more careful consideration reveals that you don't even need the name, so <complexType/> is also allowed. So what? In the Examples, there appear to be instance fragments and schema fragments, with no explanation indicating the boundaries between them. (The xmlspec markup allows Examples to have titles, which would make them easier to refer to.) The use of "daughter" seems alarming, since when did children acquire a gender? 18707 1 cmsmcq 2008-02-04 16:17:22 +0000 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'. 19377 2 cmsmcq 2008-03-08 01:04:02 +0000 A wording proposal intended to resolve this issue was sent to the XML Schema WG today, 7 March 2008. http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.b5194.html (member-only link). It makes most, but not all, of the changes suggested. Those with an interest in this issue are encouraged to review the change proposal and comment if they wish. 19516 3 sandygao 2008-03-17 21:03:59 +0000 At its telcon on 2008-03-14, the XML Schema WG adopted the wording proposal at http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.b5194.html (member-only link), and believes this issue now to be resolved. Since the originator of this issue is a WG member, he is presumed to assent to this resolution of the issue. For formal purposes, however, it would be convenient if he so indicated in the usual way.