[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: Starting an issues list?
Or I'm considering changing it to a better schema expression <xs:complexType name="sourceDocument_type"> <xs:simpleContent> <xs:extension base="xs:normalizedString"> <xs:attribute name="revision" type="xs:normalizedString"/> <xs:attribute name="version" type="xs:normalizedString"/> <xs:anyAttribute namespace="##any" processContents="skip"/> </xs:extension> </xs:simpleContent> </xs:complexType> to avoid the mixed content, in which case the spec will read <sourceDocument revision ? = 'xsd:normalizedString' version ? = 'xsd:normalizedString' {any attributes with non-schema namespace . . .}> Content: xsd:string </sourceDocument> This seems better and improves the mapping to the model. Best regards Steve --- Stephen D Green On 4 February 2010 17:36, Stephen Green <stephen.green@documentengineeringservices.com> wrote: > I'd also like to make another minor correction where, > debatably, a discrepancy exists between schema and > XML Representation for sourceDocument (the last > element to receive a mod and so the most likely to have > such an error). I'd like to change > > <sourceDocument > revision ? = 'xsd:normalizedString' > version ? = 'xsd:normalizedString' {any attributes with non-schema > namespace . . .}> > Content: xsd:string > {this element also allows mixed content so text can be included > directly as part of the main element's content} > </sourceDocument> > > to > > <sourceDocument > revision ? = 'xsd:normalizedString' > version ? = 'xsd:normalizedString' {any attributes with non-schema > namespace . . .}> > {this element also allows mixed content so text can be included > directly as part of the main element's content} > </sourceDocument> > > by just removing "Content: xsd:string" as it is the > mixed content which allows the text to be added, > not an XSD 'base=xs:string' - as the schema has: > > <xs:complexType name="sourceDocument_type" mixed="true"> > <xs:attribute name="revision" type="xs:normalizedString"/> > <xs:attribute name="version" type="xs:normalizedString"/> > <xs:anyAttribute namespace="##any" processContents="skip"/> > </xs:complexType> > > Best regards > > Steve > --- > Stephen D Green > > > > > On 4 February 2010 17:28, Stephen Green > <stephen.green@documentengineeringservices.com> wrote: >> 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]