- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:14:10 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- Cc:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2112 sandygao@ca.ibm.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |WORKSFORME ------- Additional Comments From sandygao@ca.ibm.com 2005-09-09 15:14 ------- Henry's response: Unfortunately the term 'top-level' is not formally defined in the REC. There are a number of places where things such as "all the top-level (i.e. named) components. . ." appear, so it's clear that what's meant is (XML representations of) named components which appear in one of the sets of definitions/declarations of the schema component itself. On that basis, redefs of redefs are OK, and were certainly intended to be. An erratum is in order, in my opinion. See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2002JanMar/0513.html Resolution: Discussed and resolved at the June 12, 2003 telecon: RESOLVED: to classify R-123 as clarification without erratum. ACTION: Sandy Gao to send Mark Feblowitz a copy of SG's note explaining the logic of our decision.
Received on Friday, 9 September 2005 15:14:17 UTC