Re: Proposed reply to Dave Reynolds

Sounds good to me.

(I'm understanding this to mean that (a) we don't address whitespace
processing and (b) the negative entailment tests remain, now that they
have (IMO) been confirmed as valid by the XML Schema folks)

Patrick


On 2003-09-24 13:38, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com> wrote:

> 
> Housekeeping before LC2.
> 
> Should we not send something like this ...
> (I note that there is no formal WG decision on this as yet - the last I could
> find was the fudge in:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0215
> )
> 
> Maybe we should formally approve a motion like:
> 
> PROPOSE rescind decision of 15th August on fudging xmlsch whitespace
> processing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [[
> Dear Dave
> 
> as you know your comment concerning whitespace processing of XML Schema
> datatypes in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0076
> has given rise to lengthy discussion in the RDF Core WG.
> 
> <<<
> NegativeEntailmentTest xmlsch-02/Manifest.rdf#whitespace-facet-2 - FAIL
> NegativeEntailmentTest xmlsch-02/Manifest.rdf#whitespace-facet-1 - FAIL
> These test non-mutual entailment of a valid literal with an invalid
> literal that differs only by whitespace. Unfortunately our XSD
> handling library is happy with the whitespace and doesn't
> treat " 3 " as an invalid int.
> This could be fixed if that is indeed how XSD is supposed to work,
> though the current behaviour seems more useful in practice.
>>>> 
> 
> However, we are not planning to make any changes in response to this comment.;
> although we are seeking further feedback from the XML Schema WG.
> 
> Please reply, cc-ing www-rdf-comments@w3.org, indicating whether you accept
> this.
> 
> ]]
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 25 September 2003 03:35:29 UTC