This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
In "Schema Representation Constraint: Override Constraints and Semantics", is there any chance that: - D1 could be changed to Doverridden and - D2 could be changed to Doverriding? Then: 2 One of the following must be true: 2.1 D2 has a targetNamespace [attribute], and its ·actual value· is identical to the ·actual value· of the targetNamespace [attribute] of D1 (which must have such an [attribute]). 2.2 Neither D2 nor D1 have a targetNamespace [attribute]. 2.3 D2 has no targetNamespace [attribute] (but D1 does). becomes: 2 One of the following must be true: 2.1 Doverriding has a targetNamespace [attribute], and its ·actual value· is identical to the ·actual value· of the targetNamespace [attribute] of Doverridden (which must have such an [attribute]). 2.2 Neither Doverriding nor Doverridden have a targetNamespace [attribute]. 2.3 Doverriding has no targetNamespace [attribute] (but Doverridden does). This is a lot easier on the old brain! Henry (Thompson) has suggested using Dold and Dnew for the names as they are shorter. (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlschema-dev/2009Nov/0007.html ) I think there are pros and cons to both approaches and I'm happy to accept what ever the WG thinks is clearest. There are possibly similar name changes that could be made that would make the life of the reader much easier.
On reflection I'm warming to Henry's suggestion to use Dold and Dnew. As well as being shorter I think it's actually easier to understand. You then get something like: 2 One of the following must be true: 2.1 Dnew has a targetNamespace [attribute], and its ·actual value· is identical to the ·actual value· of the targetNamespace [attribute] of Dold (which must have such an [attribute]). 2.2 Neither Dnew nor Dold have a targetNamespace [attribute]. 2.3 Dnew has no targetNamespace [attribute] (but Dold does).
One detail should perhaps be mentioned: in the current text, D1 is the overriding (new) document, D2 the overridden (old) document. The fact that in the samples below they are reversed (most obviously in the samples of clause 2.3) only underscores the need for the change. I add this note here just in case someone looks at the bug later and concludes that the editors accidentally got the change backwards. The change I'm now making is indeed backwards from the samples here, but that is not accidental. (If it's me who's gotten things mixed up, someone please straighten me out.)
Oops, yes - I agree. My mistake.
The proposed change was adopted by the WG during our call of 20 November and has now been integrated into the status-quo documents on the server. The variables D1, D2, and S2 were changed both in the Schema Representation Constraint and also in the prose discussion immediately following the XML Representation Summary. (I agree with the remark that there may be other sections that would benefit from similar renamings, but the WG did not consider any other sections, and I did not make any such changes at this time.) Pete Cordell, as the originator, if you would close the issue to confirm that you are satisfied with this resolution of the issue, it would be helpful. Reopen it if you're not satisfied. If you would like to see the actual change made, please let me know and I'll attach an extract to this issue. If we don't hear from you in the next two weeks, we'll assume you are content. Thank you!
I haven't seen the actual text, but as it's a fairly simple edit I'm assuming it's OK. Thanks for making this change.