W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > October to December 2000

RE: LC-120 clarifications on datatypes

From: nchen <nchen@webmethods.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 13:26:15 -0400
To: "'C. M. Sperberg-McQueen'" <cmsmcq@acm.org>
Cc: "'W3C XML Schema Comments list'" <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001b01c03216$07979da0$2033010a@webmethods.com>
Dear Michael,

Thank you very much for considering this issue. However I am not satisfied
with the new solution.

First, I don't think LC-120 should be classified as an editorial issue. It
explains a substantial problem with timeDuration. But if you still insists
that it is an editorial issue I would label it as a 'cover up'.

Your email doesn't contain any answers to the questions I raised during the
last call period.

I looked at the new timeDuration in Part 2 of Sep 22, 200 draft. The new
solution is unacceptable. Using the given component wise subtraction,
processor will be unable to apply minInclusive, minExclusive, maxInclsive &
maxExclusive in a meaningful or usable manner. Here are some alternate
solutions that I can think of:
1) use seconds to represent timeDuration;
2) use days,hours, minutes and seconds to represent timeDuraion;
3) remove minInclusive, minExclusive, maxInclsive & maxExclusive facets from
timeDuratioin.

I request you to record my dissent and be reviewed by the Director.

Thank you again for considering this issue.

All the best,
Ninggang Chen

-----Original Message-----
From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen [mailto:cmsmcq@acm.org]
Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2000 4:39 AM
To: Ninggang Chen
Cc: W3C XML Schema Comments list
Subject: LC-120 clarifications on datatypes


Dear Ninggang Chen:

The W3C XML Schema Working Group has spent the last several months
working through the comments received from the public on the last-call
draft of the XML Schema specification.  We thank you for the comments
you made on our specification during our last-call comment period, and
want to make sure you know that all comments received during the
last-call comment period have been recorded in our last-call issues
list (http://www.w3.org/2000/05/12-xmlschema-lcissues).

Our records show that you raised (possibly among others) the point
registered in our issues list as

LC-120 [Clarifications] Part 2 Datatypes

This issue was classified by the work-group as 'editorial' issues.
This class includes both simple typo and bug reports, and suggestions
for editorial improvements.

The editors of the spec have asked me to thank you (and the many other
commentators) for the wealth of detailed editorial suggestions.  Many
of them they have simply adopted in the text of the specification;
some apply to passages which have been completely reworked (and thus
may be said to have been overtaken by events); some the editors have
decided, upon consideration, not to make; some the editors still
intend to make in a later editorial reworking of parts of the spec.
The editorial changes made in response to your and other suggestions
may be seen in the new public working drafts of the spec, at

   http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0 (primer)
   http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1 (structures)
   http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2 (datatypes)

If you are not satisfied with the Working Group's or editors' handling
of your suggestions, and would like the relevant decisions reviewed by
the Director of the W3C, please let me know as soon as possible.

Thank you again for your interest in our specification, and for your
assistance in improving it.

with best regards,

-C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
  World Wide Web Consortium
  Co-chair, W3C XML Schema WG
Received on Monday, 9 October 2000 13:24:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:12:48 GMT