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 5257 - Correct references to legitimately nilled elements (ELV(E))
Summary: Correct references to legitimately nilled elements (ELV(E))
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Structures: XSD Part 1 (show other bugs)
Version: 1.1 only
Hardware: Macintosh All
: P1 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL:
Whiteboard: terminology cluster
Keywords: editorial, resolved
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2007-11-08 16:37 UTC by C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Modified: 2008-04-11 21:54 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2007-11-08 16:37:04 UTC
The Structures spec has several occasions to refer to the set of elements
which are legitimately nilled (i.e. their governing declaration has
nillable=true and the element instance has xsi:nil='true').  In XSDL 1.0
and XSDL 1.1 both, this takes the form of a reference to clause 3.2 of
the validation rule Element Locally Valid (Element).

In XSDL 1.0, this clause reference is correct.  In XSDL 1.1, clause
3.2 now handles the more general case where the element declaration
has nillable=true, regardless of what is happening in the instance.
The consequence is to render incomprehensible (and wrong) most of the 
other parts of the spec that refer to clause ELV(E) 3.2.

The clause that covers the same set of situations is now numbered 
3.2.3.

Either the editors should update the clause references to produce 
the correct number, or a term should be defined to denote the relevant
concept and the clause references should be rephrased to use 
references to the new technical term.

Personally, this editor believes the latter (technical term) is 
preferable (both here and for virtually every occurrence of clause 
references in the document), but the Working Group or other editors 
may have different views.
Comment 1 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2008-04-11 21:53:49 UTC
This issue was resolved by the proposal at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.b5195.html
(member-only link) adopted by the WG 28 March 2008.