[Bug 27845] msData\regex\reU6 should be valid

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27845

--- Comment #7 from Georgiy Rakov <georgiy.rakov@oracle.com> ---
(In reply to Michael Kay from comment #6)
> That's a tough question to answer because you have to make a decision about
> how to interpret the fact that XSD 1.0 references Unicode 3.1. I think most
> WG members would say, go with a later version of Unicode if you want, but
> spec lawyers might not agree. W3C of course does not award conformance
> certificates.

Hello,

[1] contains following assertion:

Note:  [Unicode Database] is subject to future revision. For example, the
mapping from code points to character properties might be updated. All
·minimally conforming· processors ·must· support the character properties
defined in the version of [Unicode Database] that is current at the time this
specification became a W3C Recommendation. However, implementors are encouraged
to support the character properties defined in any future version. 

Namely it states that implementors of conformant processors are encouraged to
support the character properties defined in any future version of Unicode; and
before it states that Unicode can be updated by changing the mapping from code
points to character properties.

I wonder if this implies that new Unicode version can define some character
property existing in the previous version by updating the mapping from code
points to this character property, and implementors of conformant processors
are allowed (even encouraged) to support this.

If this is true then I believe the decision made in bug 13607 can be legally
applied to XML Schema 1.0 not just to XML Schema 1.1 because this is what
actually happened to characters engaged in the tests presented in this bug.

Could you please tell if you agree with the reasoning above and with the
conclusion that the decision made in bug 13607 can be applied to XML Schema
1.0.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/

Thank you,
Georgiy.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Thursday, 11 June 2015 16:39:16 UTC