W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > May 2003

RE: F&O Definitions of derived duration types

From: Ashok Malhotra <ashokma@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 08:58:19 -0700
Message-ID: <E5B814702B65CB4DA51644580E4853FB0846B7DC@red-msg-12.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Priscilla Walmsley" <priscilla@walmsley.com>, <public-qt-comments@w3.org>

Priscilla:
See below...

All the best, Ashok

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-qt-comments-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Priscilla Walmsley
> Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2003 5:46 AM
> To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
> 
> 
> A few comments on the simple type definitions of yearMonthDuration and
> dayTimeDuration:
> 
> 1.  The simple type definitions use prefixed names ("xdt:...") in the
> name attribute of the simpleType element.  This is not valid - the
name
> takes its namespace from the targetNamespace of the schema.
[AM] Perhaps it needs to be clarified that the target namespace of the
schema that contains these fragments is referred to by the prefix "xdt".
> 
> 2.  The pattern for xdt:dayTimeDuration has line breaks and spaces in
it
> to format it.   This implies that those line breaks and spaces are
> allowed in the pattern, which they aren't.  Even though it makes it
even
> less readable, I think the white space should be removed from the
> pattern.
[AM] I'll see what we can do to fix this.
> 
> 3. The sentence "In this [XML Schema Part 1: Structures] fragment, the
> value of attributeFormDefault is unqualified." appears before each
> simple type definition.  What does this mean?  No attributes are
> declared in the example, so the attributeFormDefault of the schema
> fragment is irrelevant.  Is it an explanation of why the attributes
used
> in the example (name, base, value) are unqualified?  If so, I don't
> think that really needs an explanation.  That is the rule for _all_
> schema fragments.
[AM] We added this text because there was a comment from a reader who
found it confusing.  If it's redundant I'm not too worried.  If it's an
error it should be fixed. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Priscilla
> 
> 
Received on Saturday, 10 May 2003 13:37:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:14:24 GMT