- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:01:18 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3264
--- Comment #6 from Dave Peterson <davep@iit.edu> 2009-04-13 17:01:18 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Noah Mendelsohn has pointed out a flaw in the proposed wording, which
> also applies to the description of the lexical space. ("The set of possibly
> empty character sequences, huh? OK, here's a character sequence:
> 'http://www.w3.org/'. Could it possibly be empty? No, it's not empty,
> and it couldn't possibly be empty without no longer being itself: I can
> see characters right there. I guess it's not a member of the value space,
> or of the lexical space either.")
>
> Perhaps it would be better to change the proposed new section on value
> space and the existing first sentence of the section on lexical mapping
IIRC, the "possibly empty" was directed by the WG some time ago (since some
FLCS are required to be non-empty, and we wanted to be explicit at every
occurrence. There are 8 occurrences of 'possibly empty' in the current spec.
Either we expect readers to understand what's meant, or we must fix all eight.
I suspect that anyone who comes up with Noah's "flaw" will understand what we
meant. If we're going to fix things at this level of nit-pick, we've got a lot
of other changes to be made too. Let's not go down that slippery slope.
OTOH, note that the lexical space is limited to finite sequences; the value
space (by the proposed wording) is not. Since when we insured we were explicit
about allowing or disallowing the empty string, we also chose to be careful to
disallow infinite strings, the wording from Lexical Mapping should be used.
--
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 Monday, 13 April 2009 17:01:28 UTC