[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: Starting an issues list?
All I will do with these non-substantive changes to the schema (separate and inline) is change those places where we have <xs:complexType name="***Shared_type" mixed="true"> <xs:simpleContent> <xs:extension base="***_type"> <xs:attribute name="conflict" type="***ConflictCode_type"/> </xs:extension> </xs:simpleContent> </xs:complexType> to <xs:complexType name="***Shared_type"> <xs:simpleContent> <xs:extension base="***_type"> <xs:attribute name="conflict" type="***ConflictCode_type"/> </xs:extension> </xs:simpleContent> </xs:complexType> (where '***' is 'predicate', 'target', 'var', etc) This change has little effect - it only improves the clarity of the schema and the fidelity to the spec representation. The 'mixed=true' is just ignored by schema processors/parsers. Just as well to remove it though I think. Best regards Steve --- Stephen D Green On 4 February 2010 16:06, Stephen Green <stephen.green@documentengineeringservices.com> wrote: >> I passed it >> through the W3C online schema validator and found I got >> a few warnings because there are places where simpleContent >> is specified as having mixed content (mixed content when >> there are no child elements, I think that means). > > OK, I found the causes of these 'warnings' and could correct > them easily enough but that would warrant another draft of just > the markup spec and the schema. I think it's worth this very > minor change just to avoid misunderstanding of the important > schema, even though it does not affect instances. > > I'll send out new drafts of the schema and the spec in a few > hours time. > > Best regards > > Steve > --- > Stephen D Green > > > > On 4 February 2010 15:23, Stephen Green > <stephen.green@documentengineeringservices.com> wrote: >> >> Dear TAG TC, >> I guess we will need an issues list. Any progress/thoughts >> about having and using a Jira account? >> I'm not sure how our TC comments will need to be separated >> from external/public comments. I will have a few comments >> of my own on how things might be improved after public review. >> After this month I may have to submit comments via the >> public comments list. Are we supposed to keep TC comments >> separate and try to make such comments before the review >> rather than during it? >> My comment for now is that I think there would be special >> benefit in having the schema itself reviewed. I passed it >> through the W3C online schema validator and found I got >> a few warnings because there are places where simpleContent >> is specified as having mixed content (mixed content when >> there are no child elements, I think that means). Some >> review of this and any other related schema design features >> might be warranted and might require minor changes to the >> model as well as the schema (but these should not, I hope, >> affect XML instances). >> Best regards >> >> Steve >> --- >> Stephen D Green >> >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]