5353 2008-01-09 20:10:00 +0000 Do "path" etc. apply to model groups or particles or content models? 2009-10-10 01:22:19 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Structures: XSD Part 1 1.1 only PC Windows XP CLOSED WORKSFORME terminology cluster editorial, noFurtherAction P2 normal --- 1 sandygao cmsmcq cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 18260 0 sandygao 2008-01-09 20:10:00 +0000 In section 3.8.4.2, there are sentences like the following: * if M is a model group which obeys the Unique Particle Attribution (§3.8.6) constraint But UPA only applies to content models (the *root* particle of a complex type), not model groups. * some sequence S of element information items has two ·paths· in P (where P is a particle) But "path" (follow the link) is defined in terms of "in a model group M". * For example, in the content model * By contrast, in the content model The examples (<xs:sequence> or <xs:choice>) aren't necessarily content models. Should use either "particle" or "model group", depending what the definition of "compete" is really for. * Two (or more) ·paths· of a sequence S in a Particle P Again, "path" is defined for model groups. * For any sequence S of element information items and any particle P, a ·path· of S in P Ditto. Seems that the rest of the spec needs concepts like path, validation-path, compete, UPA, ... for particles (and content models); but what's established in earlier parts of 3.8.4 only covers model groups. Maybe at least the concept of "path" should be re-introduced for particles, after the 3.9.4.1.1 material. And update links from the above cited sentences to point to the particle-path, as opposed to the model-group-path. But then it seems 3.9.4 becomes a better home for 3.8.4.2, as it's mainly about particles, not model groups. 28201 1 cmsmcq 2009-10-10 01:22:04 +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 to close this issue without further action. Since this is a WG issue, not an external one, I'm going both to mark it resolved and to close it. [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)