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
--
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
> OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
