[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] NEW ISSUE: Do we need appendix A (pseudo-schema)?
I should also note that none of the other SCA specs (eg: SCA BPEL) have a pseudo-schema appendix. It would be nice to be consistent. -Anish -- Anish Karmarkar wrote: > Title: Do we need appendix A (pseudo-schema)? > > Description: > In the assembly spec, statements related to the structure of the > scdl/componentType/constrainingType occur in: > 1) Spec text (such as, 'this optional element of type xs:anyURI washes > dishes'), > 2) XML Schema in appendix B > 3) XML Schema as a separate doc pointed at by the RDDL > 4) pseudo-schema that is strewn throughout the spec > 5) pseudo-schema in appendix A > > Any change to the syntax requires changes in 5 different places. Yes, > pseudo-schemas are non-normative, so an error in pseudo-schema poses a > lesser problem than an error in normative text. Nevertheless, we should > aim for no errors. Pseudo-schema is meant mostly for readability (as in > most cases XML Schema isn't) and therefore meant for consumption by > human readers. We already have partial pseudo-schemas throughout the > doc. Is it still necessary to have a consolidated pseudo-schema in > appendix A? If not, we should get rid of it and eliminate a potential > source of inconsistency/error. > > Proposal: none > > -Anish > -- > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in > OASIS > at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]