- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 10:35:37 +0100
- To: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson)
- Cc: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org, liam@w3.org
* Henry S. Thompson wrote: >>>> > Where is clarification required -- I wasn't aware there was >>>> > any area where is was not clear that unprefixed QNames are >>>> > default-namespace qualified. >>>> >>>> The only thing that Schema Part 2 (section 3.2.18) says about the mapping of >>>> the lexical space to the value space for QNames is the Note: "The mapping >>>> between literals in the ·lexical space· and values in the ·value space· of >>>> QName requires a namespace declaration to be in scope for the context in >>>> which QName is used." >>> >>>This will be clarified in a forthcoming erratum, sorry. >> >> Where in http://www.w3.org/2001/05/xmlschema-errata is this erratum? > >1) It's not out yet; >2) It will be in http://www.w3.org/2004/03/xmlschema-errata when it > appears. It's still not there. The erratum was "forthcoming" in December 2002 and the XML Schema Working Group since published a revised Recommendation. Could the XML Schema Working Group please take steps to ensure that the errata documents it's chartered to maintain are up to date as required by the W3C Process? I note that there are other outstanding issues like http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2004OctDec/0014 which didn't receive much attention yet either. Thanks, -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Sunday, 5 February 2006 09:34:48 UTC