- From: Priscilla Walmsley <priscilla@walmsley.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:19:20 -0400
- To: "'Ashok Malhotra'" <ashokma@microsoft.com>, "'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>
Hi, On (2), we agreed on where the missing parenthesis should go (I can't find the link right now, but I will dig it up). However, as far as I know this change hasn't made it into the second edition yet. (1) and (3) have not been looked at (and for the record I agree with both of them). Priscilla > -----Original Message----- > From: www-xml-schema-comments-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-xml-schema-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of > Ashok Malhotra > Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 8:18 AM > To: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen; W3C XML Schema Comments list > Cc: Biron,Paul V; Dave Peterson; Lisa Martin; Priscilla Walmsley > Subject: RE: problems in erratum > > > > 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 Friday, 11 July 2003 09:19:30 UTC