Fair enough.  I think we've agreed that the spec. is not nearly as clear 
as it should be on the whole architecture surrounding this.  I suppose I 
was trying to say that its intentions seem pretty clear to me, at least in =

this somewhat limited but very common case.

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








"Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
09/19/2006 04:07 AM
 
        To:     <noah=5Fmendelsohn@u...>
        cc:     "'Sandy Gao'" <sandygao@c...>, "'Wolfgang Jeltsch'" 
<wolfgang@j...>, <xmlschema-dev@w...>
        Subject:        RE: including a schema document multiple times


> 
> The Recommendation says, as Sandy noted:
> 
> "Note: The above is carefully worded so that multiple 
> <include>ing of the same schema document will not constitute 
> a violation of clause 2 of Schema Properties Correct 
> (=A73.15.6), but applications are allowed, indeed encouraged, 
> to avoid <include>ing the same schema document more than once 
> to forestall the necessity of establishing identity component 
> by component."
> 
> Though a language lawyer could surely find lots of wiggle 
> room, I don't think it's a great leap to suggest that this 
> does cover the case 

Well, it's a bit odd to claim that the spec is clear because it contains a
non-normative note that claims the spec is clear, rather than pointing to
the normative text that is claimed to be clear... 

If the spec really were carefully worded, then it wouldn't be necessary to
say so.

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/




From george@o... Tue Sep 19 12:49:25 2006
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41])
	by frin