Comments from i18n core WG on "Basic XML Schema Patterns for Databinding Version 1.0"

Dear XML Schema Patterns for Databinding Working Group,

I'm sorry that these comments are after the LC period of your document , but would it
still be possible to take them into account? I'm sending them on behalf
of the i18n core WG.

comment 1)
describes how an XML Schema document should look like , to ease
processing with data binding tools. You have also recommendations about
the BOM. It would be great if you could add a link to the Unicode FAQ on
the BOM , to provide
implementers with a way to get more detailed information.

comment 2) various subsections in
talk about time / date related patterns, see subsections
2.14.6 - 2.14.11, also 2.15.6 - 2.15.11 .
It would be great if you could add a note pointing to the document
"Working with Time Zones" . It provides
information e.g. about the difference between dateTime in XML Schema vs.
programming languages, which seems to be relevant for your audience.

comment 3) subsections 2.14.17 and 2.15.17 , on the LanguageElement /
LanguageAttribute . The definition of the language type at refers only to RFC 3066 and
the pattern [a-zA-Z]{1,8}(-[a-zA-Z0-9]{1,8})* . It would be great if you
could point to BCP 47 instead, see . BCP 47 is the "Best Common
Practice" for language identification. Currently, BCP 47 is represented
by the successor of RFC 3066, which is RFC 4646 (Tags for Identifying
Languages) and RFC 4647 (Matching of Language Tags).

Thank you very much in advance. Regards, Felix

Received on Monday, 29 January 2007 13:28:14 UTC