- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 19:15:51 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6175
C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@w3.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Keywords| |decided
Resolution| |FIXED
--- Comment #1 from C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@w3.org> 2008-10-29 19:15:51 ---
We discussed this issue at the ftf this morning. After some confusion and
delay, we concluded that the analysis here is essentially correct. In the
context of this appendix, however, we believed the intensional wording offered
in the final paragraph of the description is not the right thing, and we
converged on a variant of the first wording offered, namely:
They are both wildcards, and one of the following is true of the
wildcard intersection of their {namespace constraint}s as defined in
Attribute Wildcard Intersection (§3.10.6.4):
- it has {variety} = ANY
- it has {variety} = NOT
- it has {variety} = ENUMERATION {namespaces} != the empty set.
There was some sentiment for reducing confusion by eliminating the
word 'Attribute' from the name of the constraint being referred to.
We also attempted to understand how the original error came about, but
the only theory we arrived at was rather strained and involved (a) omission
of an 'or', (b) bad formatting, and (c) substitution of an 'and' for an
'or'.
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2008 19:16:01 UTC