- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:13:47 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3226 cmsmcq@w3.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |needsDrafting ------- Comment #3 from cmsmcq@w3.org 2007-09-17 20:13 ------- The XML Schema Working Group discussed this issue in its telcon of 7 September 2007 and instructed the editors to prepare a wording proposal with the following properties: - The spec should use the words 'string', 'integer', etc. in their usual technical meaning. (Optionally, existing circumlocutions like 'character string' may be changed to use the simpler form 'string'.) - When the spec needs to refer to a string, integer, etc. qua member of the value space of a particular XSDL datatype (i.e. when we are speaking of a value identified, in the course of validation, as the value corresponding to the lexical form specified by a given information item), some explicit phrasing should be used, not the simple words 'string', 'integer', etc. - The spec should at some appropriate point make clear (a) that the terms 'string', 'integer', etc. are used in their normal technical sense, (b) that other phrasing (to be specified) is used when speaking of values qua members of the value space of a specific XSDL datatype, and (c) that of course all strings (as we use the term) are in fact members of the lexical and value spaces of xs:string (and similarly, mutatis mutandis, for integer), so that this is purely a question of connotation, not denotation. - The terms 'string', 'integer', etc. should be given formal definitions for each usage, and each occurrence of the terms should be hyperlinked to the appropriate definition, so that in case of doubt a reader can check what we think we mean. I'm marking this as needsDrafting.
Received on Monday, 17 September 2007 20:13:53 UTC