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

RE: F&O Definitions of derived duration types

From: Paul Cotton <pcotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 12:54:40 -0400
Message-ID: <E7AC4500EAB7A442ABA7521D1881439706324DAB@tor-msg-01.northamerica.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Priscilla Walmsley" <priscilla@walmsley.com>
Cc: <public-qt-comments@w3.org>

See our response below.

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada 
17 Eleanor Drive, Nepean, Ontario K2E 6A3 
Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-qt-comments-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Priscilla Walmsley
> Sent: May 10, 2003 8:46 AM
> To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: F&O Definitions of derived duration types
> 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
> takes its namespace from the targetNamespace of the schema.

You are correct and we will fix this error.

> 2.  The pattern for xdt:dayTimeDuration has line breaks and spaces in
> 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
> less readable, I think the white space should be removed from the
> pattern.

If we remove the line breaks and white space then the pattern value will
not format correctly.  Therefore we agreed to add an editorial note to
explain that the line breaks and spaces are NOT significant.

Please let us know if you are not satisfied with this solution to your

> 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
> 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.

We will remove the erroneous sentence.

Thank you for your corrections and comments.
> Thanks,
> Priscilla
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2003 12:54:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:45:12 UTC