OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sca-assembly message

[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 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 
> 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]