- From: Ashok Malhotra <ashokma@microsoft.com>
- Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 12:40:42 -0800
- To: "Xan Gregg" <xan.gregg@jmp.com>
- Cc: <public-qt-comments@w3.org>
Hi Xan: Those are the correct issues lists and my recollection is that all issues were resolved in both the datamodel and F&O lists. On Schema comment 1.4 it is possible that we did not create an issue but just discussed and resolved it. We decided that all functions that accept or return xs:anyURI accept/return xs:string. This is partly because of backwards compatibility with XPath 1.0 functions and partly because we did a poll and found that most implementations do not validate the lexical forms of xs:anyURI. We've discussed this in the Schema WG and decided that only modest validation was possible. Microsoft products do some validations but others do not. Thus, they treat xs:anyURI as xs:string. We decided that 2.4 was editorial and changed the wording of a note that discusses surrogate pairs. I believe the datamodel issues were also closed but I don't remember exactly how they were resolved. All the best, Ashok -----Original Message----- From: Xan Gregg [mailto:xan.gregg@jmp.com] Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 11:50 AM To: Ashok Malhotra Cc: public-qt-comments@w3.org Subject: RE: XML Schema WG comments on Functions and Operators Ashok, As part of reviewing the latest F&O draft for the XML Schema WG, I'm trying to track the issues previously raised by XML Schema WG. You provided a very useful unofficial response [1] to all of the comments. Most items had one of the following dispositions: 1. created discussion thread (1.4 strings and URIs, 2.4. Surrogate pairs) 2. created a Data Model issue (DM-LC1-0129, DM-LC1-0130, DM-LC1-0131 in [2]) 3. created an F&O issue (LC1-100, LC1-103, LC1-104, LC1-111 in [3]) 4. described a completed editorial change For the items in #1, I don't see them on any recorded issue list. Is there a different issues list I should be reading, besides [2] and [3]? And has there been any resolution on the items in #2? The issues list just says "Cross-WG discussions are underway" on each of these. Thanks, xan [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-comments/2003Aug/ 0141.html [2] http://www.w3.org/XML/2003/05/xpath-datamodel-issues/ [3] http://www.w3.org/XML/2003/05/xpath-functions-issues/
Received on Sunday, 1 February 2004 15:40:58 UTC