W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > October to December 2007

Re: [Bug 3265] Length facet for QNames

From: Dave Peterson <davep@iit.edu>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:48:11 -0400
Message-Id: <a06240827c34c57d44ecb@[]>
To: bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org

At 3:33 AM +0000 2007-10-30, bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org wrote:

>------- Comment #1 from cmsmcq@w3.org  2007-10-30 03:33 -------
>The description of length, minLength, and maxLength in sections,
>, and of Datatypes provides the information whose absence
>is lamented here (namely, that the length, minLength, and maxLength facets
>are always satisfied for any candidate literals being tested for membership
>in types QName, NOTATION, or any types derived from them).
>To make this more easily detectable by the reader, I propose to change
>the wording of the relevant paragraphs in (QName) and
>(NOTATION).  They currently read
>     The use of ·length·, ·minLength· and ·maxLength· on &#8593;QName or&#8593;
>     datatypes derived from QName is deprecated.  Future versions
>     of this specification may remove these facets for this datatype.
>I propose to add, after the word "deprecated", the sentence "These
>facets are meaningless for these types, and so all instances are
>facet-valid with respect to them."  Also change "this datatype"
>to "these datatypes".  The result is a paragraph reading
>     The use of length, minLength and maxLength on QName or datatypes
>     derived from QName is deprecated.  These facets are meaningless
>     for such types, and so all instances are facet-valid with respect
>     to them.

What is the referent for "them"?  One has to read and reread to decide
whether it is the datatypes (NOT "types"; there is a bug which complains
about our use of both words interchangeably), the facets, or possibly
even the instances.  Is "...with respect to those facets" acceptable?
Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2007 03:48:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:50:07 UTC