- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 03:02:20 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5078 cmsmcq@w3.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED Keywords|needsAgreement, needsReview |resolved Resolution| |FIXED ------- Comment #7 from cmsmcq@w3.org 2008-05-31 03:02 ------- The working group adopted the wording proposal made by Xan Gregg in comment #4 at its call today. The other material in the proposal mentioned in comment #5 was not adopted, since the WG had no consensus on which of the two variant proposals embodied in it (Proposal A, aka "you valid with the schema you've got", or proposal B, aka "Close only counts in horseshoes: if there's an undischarged reference, or a reference to an unusable component, then the component is unusable.") is actually closer to (a) the rules enunciated in the status quo, or (b) what existing implementations actually do. Since the wording proposal does address the issue actually raised by the originator, even though it does not address the larger question suggested by the bug summary, the WG believes the adoption of comment #4 resolves the issue, and I am so marking the bug. Xan, if as the originator you could indicate by closing the issue that you are satisfied wtih this resolution, or indicate by reopening the issue that you are dissatisfied (and explain why), we would be grateful. If we don't hear from you in the next two weeks, we will assume that your silence implies consent.
Received on Saturday, 31 May 2008 03:03:09 UTC