W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > October to December 2006

[Bug 3736] canonical mappings should be presented uniformly

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 22:10:27 +0000
CC:
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1GX3KN-0001mI-8f@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3736





------- Comment #3 from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com  2006-10-09 22:10 -------
> > While we are tweaking this bit of the document,
> > we should probably take the opportunity to
> > change the name of the second subsection on each
> > primitive type (3.3.n.2) from 'Lexical Mapping'
> > to the more informative and suggestive 'Lexical
> > representation'.

> Well, I always thought 'Lexical Representation'
> was less informative; I guess YMMV applies.  Of
> course, in 1.0 (where we used 'Lexical
> representation'), we never gave the lexical
> mappings, so we never said which "lexical
> representations" represented which values.  Which
> biased me against the phrase as a title.


The term "lexical representation" is widely used in Schema 1.0 part 2.  While I
have no strong preference on the question discussed above, I think it's
essential that we continue to provide a compatible definition for that term. 
So, we can either stick with "lexical representation", or we can go with
"lexical mapping" but explain that references in external specifications to the
"lexical representation" of a type should be understood as referring to the
lexical mapping in the case where schema 1.1 is used.

In short, my concern is that external specifications may refer to the term
"lexical representation", and I don't want those specs to break or require
extensive revision when they move to Schema 1.1.

Noah
Received on Monday, 9 October 2006 22:10:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:13:11 GMT