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

RE: problems in erratum

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>
Message-ID: <002701c347af$0a6b9f20$ef2efea9@WALMSLEYPH>

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

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