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

RE: LC-3, 4, 5, 8 (your comments on XML Schema)

From: Paul Cotton <pcotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 06:36:28 -0700
Message-ID: <E9BD05BB625E9F4CB954EAED3BD65399049629DB@tor-msg-01.northamerica.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>
Cc: W3C XML Schema Comments list <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>, "W3C XML Query WG (E-mail)" <w3c-xml-query-wg@w3.org>
I am satisfied with your handling of LC-3, LC-4 and LC-5.

I too do not think LC-8 is an editorial issue.  I am still concerned that
user's of the XML Query language will want to distinguish between
occurrences of XML Schema Integers with the values 01 and 1.  This is why I
wanted to prohibit the former.  Since XML Schema has not prohibited the
first alternative then XML Query will simply have to ensure that it clearly
states which values can be searched for.

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada 
17 Eleanor Drive, Nepean, Ontario K2E 6A3 
Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329 
<mailto:pcotton@microsoft.com> 



-----Original Message-----
From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen [mailto:cmsmcq@acm.org]
Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2000 4:39 AM
To: Paul Cotton
Cc: W3C XML Schema Comments list
Subject: LC-3, 4, 5, 8 (your comments on XML Schema)


Dear Paul:

The W3C XML Schema Working Group has (as I believe you are already
aware) 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 (among others) the points registered
in our issues list as

LC-3 Why allow divergent order relations?
LC-4 Enumerations should inherit ordering from underlying type
LC-5 Ordering information is missing
LC-8 Integers should not allow non-significant leading or trailing zeroes

These issues were classified by the work-group as 'editorial' issues.
(Or so the last-call issues list shows.  I am puzzled, frankly, by
seeing LC-8 show up as editorial instead of as a class-D issue with
the others which bear upon single vs. multiple lexical
representations.)  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 Tuesday, 10 October 2000 09:45:12 GMT

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