- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 02:30:40 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5162 ------- Comment #5 from cmsmcq@w3.org 2008-03-05 02:30 ------- Comment #4 says "5162 is not listed in Status". Sorry about that. I may have referred to the wrong proposal: 5162 is listed in the Status section of http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.consent.200802.html (member-only link). It's listed among items for which the editors proposed (and the WG agreed) to make no change. The rationale given in that list for closing 5162 without action was The phrase "resolve to" is used in many places, most of which don't make explicitly claim about the target component being global. I might phrase it in a slightly different way: mentioning the word "global" in the context mentioned here would encourage the misconception that a QName could in theory resolve to a local component -- otherwise, (the reader might reason) surely, no such qualification would be necessary. I hope this helps.
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2008 02:30:53 UTC