W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > April to June 2001

RE: Part 2: Datatypes

From: Jeff Lowery <jlowery@scenicsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:05:57 -0700
Message-ID: <3549BAFD79A7D411A1CF00508B62B5BC766B0D@exchange-us.scenicsoft.com>
To: "'Biron,Paul V '" <Paul.V.Biron@kp.org>, Jeff Lowery <jlowery@scenicsoft.com>, "''www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org' '" <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>

I think its a very ambiguous and roundabout sentence. How about:

"For all atomic types other than "string" and "normalizedString", whiteSpace
is "collapse" and cannot be changed by the schema author through type
restriction." Or some such. It points out the only two atomic types where
whiteSpace is not set to "collapse".


-----Original Message-----
From: Biron,Paul V
To: 'Jeff Lowery'; 'www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org'
Sent: 4/10/01 3:34 PM
Subject: RE: Part 2: Datatypes

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Jeff Lowery [SMTP:jlowery@scenicsoft.com]
> Sent:	Saturday, April 07, 2001 11:22 PM
> To:	'www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org'
> Subject:	Part 2: Datatypes
> Couple of minor corrections (excuse the bad element names):
> < whiteSpace>
> "whiteSpace is applicable to all atomic and list datatypes. For all
> datatypes other than string (and types derived by restriction from it)
> value of whiteSpace is collapse and cannot be changed by a schema
> author;..."
> Actually, the whitespace value for normalizedString (derived from
> is
> "replace"; token collapses it. 
> </ whiteSpace>
normalizedString is covered by the "...(and types derived by restriction
from it)..." clause.  IOW, the whiteSpace is collapse for all PRIMITIVE
types other than string.  Would it help if we added the word

> <Datatypes Schema>
> Near the bottom of the ENTITIES definition it says:
>       <xs:minLength value="1" id="ENTITES.minLength"/>
> Missing the "I" in ENTITIES.minLength; hard to see, I know. 
> </Datatypes Schema>
Thank you catching this one.  We'll fix it.

> P. S.
> Sorry, I'm sure this has been asked several times already:
> Committee-endorsed XML Schema namespace prefix convention: xs:? xsd:?
> both?
> other? none?
None.  The WG hasn't "endorsed" any specific prefix.  And, speaking just
myself, the WG should NOT endorse any specific prefix.

Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2001 21:06:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:56 UTC