W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > July to September 2003

RE: problems in erratum

From: Ashok Malhotra <ashokma@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 05:17:30 -0700
Message-ID: <E5B814702B65CB4DA51644580E4853FB095260D1@red-msg-12.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>, "W3C XML Schema Comments list" <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
Cc: "Biron,Paul V" <Paul.V.Biron@kp.org>, "Dave Peterson" <davep@iit.edu>, "Lisa Martin" <lmartin@ca.ibm.com>, "Priscilla Walmsley" <priscilla@walmsley.com>

Michael:
There were bugs introduced in adding the approved text to the Second
Edition.  Priscilla pointed this out and we agreed to correct.  I do not
know what the current status is.  

Copying Priscilla so she can double check. 

All the best, Ashok

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen [mailto:cmsmcq@acm.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 6:13 PM
> To: W3C XML Schema Comments list
> Cc: Biron,Paul V; Ashok Malhotra; Dave Peterson; Lisa Martin
> Subject: problems in erratum
> 
> The grammar given in clarification E2-9 appears to be faulty.
> My apologies; I should have caught this when the WG reviewed
> it.
> 
> Specifically:
> 
> (1) The rule for B64x15 has too many ::= symbols.  Instead of
> 
>      B64x15               ::=  B64 B64 B64 B64 B64
>                            ::=  B64 B64 B64 B64 B64
>                            ::=  B64 B64 B64 B64 B64
> 
> I think it should read
> 
>      B64x15               ::=  B64 B64 B64 B64 B64
>                                B64 B64 B64 B64 B64
>                                B64 B64 B64 B64 B64
> 
> It's a single rule, after all, not three rules.
> 
> (2) similarly for B64lastline.  This also has a parenthesis missing.
> For
> 
>      B64lastline            ::=  B64x4? B64x4? B64x4? B64x4?
>                             ::=  B64x4? B64x4? B64x4? B64x4?
>                             ::=  B64x4? B64x4? B64x4? B64x4?
>                             ::=  B64x4? B64x4? B64x4? B64x4?
>                             ::=  B64x4? B64x4?
>                             ::=  (B64x4 | B64 B64 B16 '=') | (B64 B04
> '=='))
>                             ::=  #xA
> 
> read
> 
>      B64lastline            ::=  B64x4? B64x4? B64x4? B64x4?
>                                  B64x4? B64x4? B64x4? B64x4?
>                                  B64x4? B64x4? B64x4? B64x4?
>                                  B64x4? B64x4? B64x4? B64x4?
>                                  B64x4? B64x4?
>                                  (B64x4 | (B64 B64 B16 '=') | (B64 B04
> '=='))
>                                  #xA
> 
> (3) A cosmetic note: in the grammar for the lexical space, I
> think the rule for B64final can be better aligned.  For
> 
>      B64final      ::=  B64 S? B04 S? '=' S? '=' S?
>                      | B64 S? B64 S? B16 S? '=' S?
> 
> read
> 
>      B64final      ::=  B64 S? B04 S? '=' S? '=' S?
>                      |  B64 S? B64 S? B16 S? '=' S?
> 
> -CMSMcQ
> 
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2003 08:17:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:50:01 UTC