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 5153 - 3.2.2 XML Representation of Attribute Declaration Schema Components
Summary: 3.2.2 XML Representation of Attribute Declaration Schema Components
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
Whiteboard: presentation cluster
Keywords: resolved
Depends on:
Reported: 2007-10-08 19:09 UTC by John Arwe
Modified: 2008-10-16 18:14 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Description John Arwe 2007-10-08 19:09:40 UTC
- confusing to see the attribute use before declaration in the second case

- if I actually follow the reading path from _Attribute Use_'s {attribute declaration} ("below") I see {value constraint} is absent and then upon return to _Attribute Use_ I see it say {value constraint} may not be absent.  Confusing.

- heading 3.2.2 says it describes attrib decl schema components, not attribute use schema components, yet one of the latter shows up in mid-tableau.  Seems like it would be appropriate to address this in the text preceding the tableau and/or the heading

- attrib decl schema component #2 in tableau, {type def} seems ripe for re-formatting in the style of {target ns}
Comment 1 John Arwe 2007-10-26 15:21:37 UTC
This bug is from the SML workgroup as a whole, decided at 2007-10-25 telecon.
Comment 2 David Ezell 2008-01-25 20:27:39 UTC
instruct the editors to improve.
Comment 3 David Ezell 2008-01-25 20:28:46 UTC
see bug 5152.
Comment 4 Sandy Gao 2008-10-08 16:00:25 UTC
The working group discussed this issue at its 2008-10-26 telecon. The WG believes that this issue has already bee addressed as part of the proposal adopted for bug 5152.

John, if you are satisfied with this resolution, please indicate so by changing the bug's status to CLOSED.  If you're not happy, please say why and REOPEN it instead.  Thanks.
Comment 5 John Arwe 2008-10-14 20:51:13 UTC
I personally am satisfied, however the SML wg also needs to concur since they endorsed the original in comment 1.  I inadvertantly closed it before SML has endorsed the change, so I will now re-open (sorry for the addl traffic that causes).

For posterity, in comment 3 Sandy no doubt intended to start with: its 2008-09-26 telecon.

I changed 10 to 09 above, because I can't come up with an appropriately pithy time machine -related remark at the moment.
Comment 6 John Arwe 2008-10-16 18:14:22 UTC
The SML working group endorsed this resolution on its telecon of 2008-10-16.