W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > July to September 2005

Re: RQ-6

From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@acm.org>
Date: 08 Jul 2005 18:53:46 -0600
To: Dave Peterson <davep@iit.edu>
Cc: W3C XML Schema Comments list <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>, Schema IG <w3c-xml-schema-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1120870420.4964.536.camel@localhost>
(Sorry to be so very slow responding to this.  My IG mail backlog
goes back further than I had realized.)

On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 16:52, Dave Peterson wrote:

> The (Candidate) Requirements document for 1.1 asserts under the
> discussion of RQ-6 that:

>> Discussion on the June 19, 2003, telcon established that in
>> the 2e draft, all simple types to which the length facet
>> applies have lengths defined.

> I have just noticed that this is not true.  QName and the
> related NOTATION do not appear to have a reasonable length
> defined.
> ...
> We were in error closing out RQ-6.

I don't think the note you quote claims that all the definitions
are reasonable.  It is perhaps guilty of saying "have lengths
defined" instead of saying, more precisely, that all the relevant
types "have a defined procedure for validating against the length
facet".

Whether reasonably or not, the spec does now say explicitly how
to validate any use of the length facet.  Section 4.3.1.3 reads
in part

  Validation Rule: Length Valid

  A value in a value space is facet-valid with respect to
  length if and only if:

  1 if the {variety} is ·atomic· then 
    ...
    1.3 if {primitive type definition} is QName or NOTATION, then
        any {value} is facet-valid.

If you follow the link from the WG history page to the minutes 
of 19 June 2003 I think you will see that this was mentioned 
at the time RQ-6 was closed.

-CMSMcQ


Received on Saturday, 9 July 2005 00:56:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:13:08 GMT