W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > January to March 2008

[Bug 5192] Terminology: "absent" (editorial)

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:21:23 +0000
CC:
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1JIZjX-0008Gm-0J@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5192





------- Comment #4 from davep@iit.edu  2008-01-26 01:21 -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> The WG instructs the editors:
> 1) to widen the definition a little to fit current uses
> 2) to mark uses with dots where appropriate

Note that the dots (meaning a pointer to a definition) is different from the
handling in part 2.  In Datatypes, "absent" is a special value.  There is no
definition.  How an implementation stores the value "absent" is up to the
implementation; if it wishes to "store" that particular value by not storing a
value, that's fine; if it wishes to store some internally recognizable
bit-string, that's fine too.  We don't say how any values must be stored.

Shouldn't the two parts be harmonized?
Received on Saturday, 26 January 2008 01:21:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:13:12 GMT