Re: [Bug 3265] Length facet for QNames

At 3:33 AM +0000 2007-10-30, bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org wrote:
>http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3265

>------- Comment #1 from cmsmcq@w3.org  2007-10-30 03:33 -------
>The description of length, minLength, and maxLength in sections 4.3.1.3,
>4.3.2.3, and 4.3.3.3 of Datatypes provides the information whose absence
>is lamented here (namely, that the length, minLength, and maxLength facets
>are always satisfied for any candidate literals being tested for membership
>in types QName, NOTATION, or any types derived from them).
>
>To make this more easily detectable by the reader, I propose to change
>the wording of the relevant paragraphs in 3.3.19.1 (QName) and 3.3.20.1
>(NOTATION).  They currently read
>
>     The use of ·length·, ·minLength· and ·maxLength· on ↑QName or↑
>     datatypes derived from QName is deprecated.  Future versions
>     of this specification may remove these facets for this datatype.
>
>I propose to add, after the word "deprecated", the sentence "These
>facets are meaningless for these types, and so all instances are
>facet-valid with respect to them."  Also change "this datatype"
>to "these datatypes".  The result is a paragraph reading
>
>     The use of length, minLength and maxLength on QName or datatypes
>     derived from QName is deprecated.  These facets are meaningless
>     for such types, and so all instances are facet-valid with respect
>     to them.

What is the referent for "them"?  One has to read and reread to decide
whether it is the datatypes (NOT "types"; there is a bug which complains
about our use of both words interchangeably), the facets, or possibly
even the instances.  Is "...with respect to those facets" acceptable?
-- 
Dave

Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2007 03:48:14 UTC