Re: ACTION on schema for serialization

I have also verified and tested this change.  

Thank you very much,
Josh


> On Sep 6, 2016, at 10:57 AM, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> wrote:
> 
> In [1], Josh Spiegel requested that the schema for serialization parameters
> eliminate a nested union that slipped in despite his request that we get
> rid of them (probably due to my misunderstanding the nature of the problem;
> my apologies).
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsl-query/2016Aug/0000.html
> 
> On today's call I took an action to do that (number not yet known).
> 
> The revised schema is at [2], and a small test file is at [3].  I have confirmed
> that the change just made to the schema does not change the validity of any
> of the individual elements in the test documents.  (The change or non-change
> in status described in the comments is from the version of the schema from
> the published draft, before the current sequence of changes started.)
> 
> [2] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/qtspecs/specifications/xslt-xquery-serialization-31/src/schema-for-serialization-parameters.xsd
> [3] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/qtspecs/specifications/xslt-xquery-serialization-31/src/schema-test.xml
> 
> I believe this discharges the action.
> 
> -- 
> ****************************************************************
> * C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, Black Mesa Technologies LLC
> * http://www.blackmesatech.com 
> * http://cmsmcq.com/mib                 
> * http://balisage.net
> ****************************************************************
> 
> 
> 
> 
>