This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 11390 - Editorial: references to wrong sections
Summary: Editorial: references to wrong sections
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Structures: XSD Part 1 (show other bugs)
Version: 1.0/1.1 both
Hardware: All All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: David Ezell
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: resolved
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2010-11-23 14:27 UTC by Sandy Gao
Modified: 2011-01-28 15:24 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description Sandy Gao 2010-11-23 14:27:09 UTC
In section 5.1 of both 1.0 ad 1.1:

"It is an error if a schema and all the components which are the value of any of its properties, recursively, fail to satisfy all the relevant Constraints on Schemas set out in the last section of each of the subsections of Schema Component Details (§3)."

This is meant to refer to the 3.x.6 subsections, but they are not always the "last" section. Attribute, complex type, and simple type all have a 3.x.7 subsection for built-in components.
Comment 1 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2011-01-12 04:05:58 UTC
Proposal:  delete the words "the last section of each of", so that the relevant part of the sentence reads

    all the relevant Constraints on Schemas set out in 
    the subsections of Schema Component Details (§3)."

It may be comforting to some readers that all the top-level sub-sections of section 3 have similar sub-structures, but they will derive that comfort even if we do not rely on or talk about the parallel structures.
Comment 2 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2011-01-22 00:51:05 UTC
On its call of 21 January 2011 the WG accepted the proposal in comment 1.
Comment 3 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2011-01-23 16:26:54 UTC
The proposal made in comment 1 has now been integrated into the status-quo
documents pointed to from
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xsd-ed-pointers.html (member-only link).
Accordingly I'm marking this issue resolved.

Sandy, if you would close it to signal your agreement with the result, or
reopen it to signal disagreement?  Thank you.