This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
The first paragraph starts discussing the CTD of both elements and attributes, and then it seems to forget about attributes in mid-sentence and discuss elements only. It comes back to attributes about a page later, by which time it's hard to pick up the thread. (Perhaps you should take attributes first, as they are simpler.) Validation Rule: Element Locally Valid (Complex Type) In rule 1, the use of the past tense in "did not apply" implies some kind of order of evaluation of the rules. Is the meaning different from "does not apply"? If there's a dependency here then it should be explicit, not darkly hinted at. Alternatively, factor out the rule. In rule 4, there seems to be some rogue capitalization of terms like "Attribute Use" and "Attribute Declaration". In rule 4.5, "does not match one" should be "does not match any" to avoid ambiguity.
Thanks for the editorial notes. With respect to capitalization: there was an issue over the Capitalization of references to Components, which received vigorous, even heated, Discussion in the Summer of 2005. Personally, I think that the use of initial caps in such References makes the Spec read as if it had been copy-edited by a not very energetic contemporary of Dr. Johnson, and the inconstancy of the upper- and lower-case usage is distracting. So I proposed to downcase them systematically. Against the proposal, it was argued that on the contrary, all references to components were consistently uppercased in 1.0, with the possible exception of a trivially small number of counter-examples, which were clearly oversights in the status quo. The Working Group was evenly divided and failed to reach consensus on the proposal. In the meantime, it has become clear that references to components are by no means consistently uppercased, in either part of the spec, so the arguments against the proposal lacked the desired basis in fact. I am uncertain whether to ask the chair to reopen the question, or to decree, in my role as editor in chief, that we will use a house-style in which component names are lowercased unless the context calls for initial capitalization. The latter would almost surely be quicker.
In an effort to make better use of Bugzilla, we are going to use the 'severity' field to classify issues by perceived difficulty. This bug is getting severity=minor to reflect the existing whiteboard note 'easy'.
A wording proposal intended to resolve this issue in full went to the XML Schema WG on 21 March 2008: http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.b5195.html (member-only link)
The proposal mentioned in comment #3 was adopted by the WG at its call of 28 March 2008. The proposal does not resolve this issue in full; the question of upper- or lower-casing phrases like "complex type definition" has not yet been resolved. For the rest, however, the WG believes the comments are resolved; Michael, if this is not so, please advise. I'm leaving this open on account of the upper/lowercase question.
The WG has decided, to close this issue. It doesn't look like we can address the uppercase-lowercase issue, though the rest of the issue has been addressed.
The WG reported this bug as FIXED on 2009-07-24. We are closing this bug as requiring no futher work. If there are issues remaining, you can reopen this bug and enter a comment to indicate the problem. Thanks very much for the feedback.