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 5155 - 3.3.2 XML Representation of Element Declaration Schema Components
Summary: 3.3.2 XML Representation of Element Declaration Schema Components
Status: CLOSED FIXED
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: presentation cluster
Keywords: resolved
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2007-10-08 19:15 UTC by John Arwe
Modified: 2008-10-16 18:16 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:

Attachments

Description John Arwe 2007-10-08 19:15:14 UTC 
The style here where divisions between different leaf cases ("otherwise if the <element> element information item has <complexType> or <group> as an ancestor and the ref [attribute] is absent,") and multiple schema components created for a single case ("An element declaration as in the first case above, with the exception") is extremely confusing to readers, as is the unintroduced forward reference to Particle schema components.
Comment 1 John Arwe 2007-10-26 15:22:13 UTC 
This bug is from the SML workgroup as a whole, decided at 2007-10-25 telecon.
Comment 2 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2008-01-25 20:29:03 UTC 
I rather hope this can be fixed in the course of resolving bug 5152.
Comment 3 Sandy Gao 2008-10-08 16:01:50 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 4 John Arwe 2008-10-14 20:49:17 UTC 
I personally am satisfied, however the SML wg also needs to concur since they endorsed the original in comment 1.

For posterity, in comment 3 Sandy no doubt intended to start with: 
...at 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 5 John Arwe 2008-10-16 18:16:04 UTC 
The SML working group endorsed this resolution on its telecon of 2008-10-16.