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

[Bug 4850] Update of reference for language data type

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:52:12 +0000
CC:
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1JKFES-0004kK-Hb@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4850


cmsmcq@w3.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
           Keywords|decided, needsDrafting      |resolved
         Resolution|                            |FIXED




------- Comment #3 from cmsmcq@w3.org  2008-01-30 15:52 -------
The changes agreed on by the WG on 14 December were integrated into
the status-quo document in December 2007.  Accordingly, I'm marking
this issue as resolved.

With regard to i18n's two points in comment #2:

With the current plans for IETF documents, it does look unlikely that
the phrase 'or its successors' will ever be needed.  The whole point
of a document series like BCP is that the documents won't go out of
date and thus won't need successors.  Speaking for myself, I think one
reason to retain the words is that current plans sometimes change.  If
the BCP series is replaced by a new series, or if the IETF decides to
change the way the world is carved up by BCP documents, then BCP 47 might
conceivably have a successor.  If that day ever comes, I'd just as soon 
not have to change the XSD spec for it.

On the notion of 'well-formed language tags'; I will look into this and
make a (separate) editorial wording proposal on the subject.  (Separate,
in the sense that I don't propose to use this issue to track that proposal;
I want to close this issue.)

Felix, and i18n WG colleagues, you can inspect the state of the current
spec on this issue at any of the following URIs, which present the status
quo text of Datatypes in fair copy and with various diffs:

  http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-2/datatypes.html
  http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-2/datatypes.diff-1.0.html
  http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-2/datatypes.diff-wd.html

If you agree with the Schema WG's disposition of the issue, please indicate
so by changing the status of this bug report to CLOSED.  If you disagree,
please REOPEN it and let us know why.  If we don't hear from you by the end
of February, we'll assume you are happy.
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2008 15:52:20 GMT

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