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 5143 - small editorial changes section 3.8.4
Summary: small editorial changes section 3.8.4
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Structures: XSD Part 1 (show other bugs)
Version: 1.1 only
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL:
Whiteboard: clarification cluster
Keywords: editorial, noFurtherAction
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2007-10-08 16:06 UTC by John Arwe
Modified: 2009-10-12 16:08 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description John Arwe 2007-10-08 16:06:42 UTC
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.
Comment 1 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2009-10-10 01:08:03 UTC
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)