Re: {facets} property value, Schema 1.0 and 1.1

On Sun, 2004-09-19 at 20:59, Dave Peterson wrote:

> It appears that the definition of the {facets} property of the
> simple type definition schema component includes both the
> fundamental and constraining facets, according to the definition.
> OTOH, since the description talks about a possibly empty set of
> facets and there is also a {fundamental facets} property which is
> the set of fundamental facets, I suspect it was intended that the
> {facets} property only include constraining facets.

Just to make sure I understand -- I think you are suggesting that the
definition should change.  Is it as simple as changing the tableau in
section 4.1.1 so that instead of reading

  {facets} A possibly empty set of Facets (§2.4).

it reads

  {facets} A possibly empty set of constraining Facets (§2.4).

? That seems harmless enough. Or would more be involved?

-CMSMcQ