5524 2008-03-04 16:50:36 +0000 Rename section 4.4.1.1 2008-08-07 18:37:33 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified SML Core LC PC Windows NT RESOLVED FIXED externalComments, reviewerSatisfied P2 normal --- 1 pratul.dublish virginia.smith ht james.lynn virginia.smith public-sml oldest_to_newest 19272 0 pratul.dublish 2008-03-04 16:50:36 +0000 Minor comment from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2008Mar/0001.html 4.4.1.1: Please call this "Mapping from schema document" 19333 1 kumarp 2008-03-06 20:31:38 +0000 resolution (3/6 conf call): mark as not a valid bug Reason: The attributes and elements on which these mappings rely are present not only in schema documents but also in schemas (in the relevant annotation properties), so we believe the current title is correct. 19883 2 ht 2008-04-18 13:59:03 +0000 [Section is now "5.2.1.1 Mapping from Schema"] I still think this is ill-judged -- the prose of this section talks _only_ about mapping from attributes and elements, which always originate in schema documents. Could we compromise on "Mapping from XML Representations" ? 19932 3 cmsmcq 2008-04-24 18:18:02 +0000 Strictly speaking, I think the premise that elements and attributes always originate in schema documents is at fault here. The section on mapping from schema is talking about the mapping from an annotation component (NOT an annotation source declaration), the contents of which are element and attribute information items. In the usual case, of course, the elements and attributes will have originated in a schema document, but we wish also to cover the case that the annotation component was born binary. Even in the latter case, however, it will contain element and attribute information items. 19933 4 pratul.dublish 2008-04-24 18:19:39 +0000 The SML WG endorsed Comment #3 in the 4/24 call 20111 5 kumarp 2008-05-15 19:06:09 +0000 The SML WG believes that comment# 3 combined with the response to bug# 5520 comment# 5 addresses this issue fully. I'm changing its status accordingly. The change in status should cause email to be sent to the originator of this issue, to whom the following request is addressed. Please review the comment text and let us know if you agree with this resolution of your issue, by adding a comment to the issue record. Or, if you do not agree with this resolution, please add a comment explaining why. If we do not hear from you in the next two weeks, we will assume you agree with the WG decision. 21137 6 james.lynn 2008-07-10 19:25:17 +0000 Sandy has discussed this with Henry and he is ok with "mapping from schema" -> "sml constraint contruction" This will need to be considered in all 5 places where this exists. Editors shall consider each individually. 21179 7 virginia.smith 2008-07-14 20:59:18 +0000 Changed 5 section titles. New section titles are: "SML Constraint Construction" and "SML Rule Construction". See diff at: http://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fdev.w3.org%2Fcvsweb%2F~checkout~%2F2007%2Fxml%2Fsml%2Fbuild%2Fsml.html%3Frev%3D1.237%26content-type%3Dtext%2Fhtml%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fdev.w3.org%2Fcvsweb%2F~checkout~%2F2007%2Fxml%2Fsml%2Fbuild%2Fsml.html%3Frev%3D1.238%26content-type%3Dtext%2Fhtml%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1 21354 8 ht 2008-07-28 12:44:18 +0000 I'm satisfied by the most recent change. 21466 9 pratul.dublish 2008-08-07 18:37:33 +0000 Per resolution in 8/7 call