Monday, 29 September 2008
- [Bug 6043] Pls define a restriction of dateTime with required timezones
- [Bug 5948] Reference to Unicode Database
Friday, 26 September 2008
- [Bug 6120] New: Reconsider blockDefault=#all
- [Bug 5928] Content model for xs:schema
- [Bug 5075] use of "ad" as an ID vs. ad blockers
- [Bug 4940] Explanation of terminology change regarding ur-type definition is a bit confusing
Thursday, 25 September 2008
- [Bug 5476] xsi:schemaLocation should be a hint, should be MAY not SHOULD
- Re: OWL WG comments on XML Schema 1.1 Datatypes
Wednesday, 24 September 2008
- [Bug 6044] Revise equality of dateTime values without timezone
- [Bug 6044] Revise equality of dateTime values without timezone
- [Bug 6048] Clarify which types the implementation limits apply to
- [Bug 6044] Revise equality of dateTime values without timezone
- [Bug 6046] Why does range of legal time zone offsets exceed actual usage?
- Re: OWL WG comments on XML Schema 1.1 Datatypes
- [Bug 6045] Single timeline value space for dateTime -- compatible or no?
- [Bug 6044] Revise equality of dateTime values without timezone
- [Bug 6043] Pls define a restriction of dateTime with required timezones
Tuesday, 23 September 2008
- [Bug 5476] xsi:schemaLocation should be a hint, should be MAY not SHOULD
- [Bug 5476] xsi:schemaLocation should be a hint, should be MAY not SHOULD
- Re: Typo in current XSDCD WD?
- Typo in current XSDCD WD?
Monday, 22 September 2008
- Fw: request for document review: XSD 1.1 by the SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group
- [Bug 5732] Provide a simplified syntax for XSD 1.1
Saturday, 20 September 2008
Friday, 19 September 2008
Thursday, 18 September 2008
- [Bug 6056] Make identity constraints propagate through substitution groups?
- [Bug 6056] Make identity constraints propagate through substitution groups?
Wednesday, 17 September 2008
Tuesday, 16 September 2008
- [Bug 5046] <xsd:attributeGroup example 2 is incorrect
- [Bug 6089] Revise anyURI to use RFCs 3986 and 3987
- [Bug 6089] New: Revise anyURI to use RFCs 3986 and 3987
Friday, 12 September 2008
- [Bug 6021] Stylesheet for xs:override
- [Bug 6046] Why does range of legal time zone offsets exceed actual usage?
- [Bug 6045] Single timeline value space for dateTime -- compatible or no?
- [Bug 6031] Oops! in algorithm of precisionDecimalCanonicalMap
- [Bug 6056] New: Make identity constraints propagate through substitution groups?
Thursday, 11 September 2008
- [Bug 6015] [schema11] valid (and its derivations) vs assessment as used in text
- [Bug 6014] [schema11] normative text problems
- [Bug 6013] [schema11] new examples needed
- [Bug 6012] [schema11] inconsistencies in text
- [Bug 6011] [schema11] base URI comments
- [Bug 6010] [schema11] priority feedback responses
- [Bug 6009] [schema11] unclear passages
Wednesday, 10 September 2008
Monday, 1 September 2008
Tuesday, 9 September 2008
- [Bug 5905] vc:typeAvailable and vc:typeUnavailable
- [Bug 5934] Typo concerning <simpleContent mixed="true">
- [Bug 5930] defaultOpenContent in the S4SD
- [Bug 5905] vc:typeAvailable and vc:typeUnavailable
- [Bug 5904] Unknown attributes in vc namespace
- [Bug 5949] Terminology: Timezone vs. zone offset
- [Bug 4642] Terminology: zone offset versus time zone
- [Bug 5861] Elements with complex types should be allowed to have assertions
- [Bug 6046] Why does range of legal time zone offsets exceed actual usage?
- [Bug 6046] Why does range of legal time zone offsets exceed actual usage?
- [Bug 6043] Pls define a restriction of dateTime with required timezones
- [Bug 6048] Clarify which times the implementation limits apply to
- [Bug 6047] Minimum implementation limit for decimal requires infinite precision - did you mean that?
- [Bug 6046] Why does range of legal time zone offsets exceed actual usage?
- [Bug 6045] Single timeline value space for dateTime -- compatible or no?
- [Bug 6044] Revise equality of dateTime values without timezone
- [Bug 6043] Pls define a restriction of dateTime with required timezones
- Re: OWL WG comments on XML Schema 1.1 Datatypes
- [Bug 6048] New: Clarify which times the implementation limits apply to
- [Bug 6047] New: Minimum implementation limit for decimal requires infinite precision - did you mean that?
- [Bug 6046] New: Why does range of legal time zone offsets exceed actual usage?
- [Bug 6045] New: Single timeline value space for dateTime -- compatible or no?
- [Bug 6044] New: Revise equality of dateTime values without timezone
- [Bug 6043] New: Pls define a restriction of dateTime with required timezones
- [Bug 5861] Elements with complex types should be allowed to have assertions
- [Bug 5861] Elements with complex types should be allowed to have assertions
Monday, 8 September 2008
Saturday, 6 September 2008
Friday, 5 September 2008
- [Bug 3248] Numeric precision
- [Bug 5947] Support for XML 1.1
- [Bug 5948] Reference to Unicode Database
- OWL WG comments on XML Schema 1.1 Datatypes
Wednesday, 3 September 2008
- [Bug 6010] [schema11] priority feedback responses
- [Bug 6010] [schema11] priority feedback responses
- [Bug 6021] Stylesheet for xs:override
- [Bug 6021] Stylesheet for xs:override
Tuesday, 2 September 2008
- [Bug 6010] [schema11] priority feedback responses
- [Bug 6021] New: Stylesheet for xs:override
- [Bug 6010] [schema11] priority feedback responses
- [Bug 6010] [schema11] priority feedback responses
- [Bug 6015] New: [schema11] valid (and its derivations) vs assessment as used in text
- [Bug 6014] New: [schema11] normative text problems
- [Bug 6013] New: [schema11] new examples needed
- [Bug 6012] New: [schema11] inconsistencies in text
- [Bug 6011] New: [schema11] base URI comments
- [Bug 6010] New: [schema11] priority feedback responses
- [Bug 6009] New: [schema11] unclear passages
- [Bug 6008] New: [schema11] small presumably editorial bugs
- [Bug 4908] 'The schema corresponding to a schema document' and QName resolution
Friday, 29 August 2008
Tuesday, 26 August 2008
Monday, 18 August 2008
- [Bug 5949] Terminology: Timezone vs. zone offset
- [Bug 5940] Element Declarations Consistent
- [Bug 5934] Typo concerning <simpleContent mixed="true">
- [Bug 5930] defaultOpenContent and override in the S4SD
- [Bug 5905] vc:typeAvailable and vc:typeUnavailable
Monday, 11 August 2008
- [Bug 5003] Applicability of <alternative> element to xml:lang
- [Bug 5950] New: References update
- [Bug 5949] New: Terminology: Timezone vs. zone offset
- [Bug 5948] New: Reference to Unicode Database
- [Bug 5947] New: Support for XML 1.1
Friday, 8 August 2008
- [Bug 5905] vc:typeAvailable and vc:typeUnavailable
- [Bug 5904] Unknown attributes in vc namespace
- [Bug 3079] RFC3066 ref
Thursday, 7 August 2008
- [Bug 5943] New: ComplexContent extending SimpleContent
- [Bug 5940] Element Declarations Consistent
- [Bug 5940] New: Element Declarations Consistent
- [Bug 5938] New: Spurious diff markup in 3.10.6.2
Wednesday, 6 August 2008
- [Bug 5934] New: Typo concerning <simpleContent mixed="true">
- [Bug 5932] Open content with empty content models
- [Bug 5932] New: Open content with empty content models
Tuesday, 5 August 2008
- Re: [Bug 5862] Please retain redefine as well as override
- [Bug 5931] Is xs:openContent/xs:any optional?
- [Bug 5931] New: Is xs:openContent/xs:any optional?
- [Bug 5930] New: defaultOpenContent in the S4SD
- [Bug 5929] New: Facets in the schema for schema documents
- [Bug 5928] New: Content model for xs:schema
Monday, 4 August 2008
- [Bug 5875] longName for elements, attributes and model groups
- Re: [Bug 5862] Please retain redefine as well as override
- [Bug 5875] longName for elements, attributes and model groups
- [Bug 5880] internationalization of tag names
- [Bug 5862] Please retain redefine as well as override
- [Bug 5003] Applicability of <alternative> element to xml:lang
Wednesday, 30 July 2008
- [Bug 5918] New: Top level declarations
- [Bug 5917] New: Typo in 3.1.1
- [Bug 5916] New: Obsolete editorial note
Tuesday, 29 July 2008
- [Bug 5906] Problem in definition of <restriction> in <complexType>::<simpleContent>
- [Bug 5907] New: Problem with BNF for type alternatives
- [Bug 5905] New: vc:typeAvailable and vc:typeUnavailable
- [Bug 5906] New: Problem in definition of <restriction> in <complexType>::<simpleContent>
- [Bug 5904] New: Unknown attributes in vc namespace
- [Bug 4887] Broken link to IEEE 754-1985
Monday, 21 July 2008
Thursday, 24 July 2008
Wednesday, 23 July 2008
- Re: Include earlier informal description of annotated component
- Re: Description of particles and terms in 2.2.3.2 confusing
- Description of particles and terms in 2.2.3.2 confusing
- Include earlier informal description of annotated component
Monday, 21 July 2008
Wednesday, 16 July 2008
Friday, 18 July 2008
- [Bug 5818] Unicode Database: shifting sands
- [Bug 5880] New: internationalization of tag names
- [Bug 5779] QName resolution and xs:import
- [Bug 5800] Possibly revise list of required infoset properties
- [Bug 5782] Definition of simpleType.{final}
- [Bug 4450] indistinguishable annotations?
- [Bug 5878] need errata documents against 1.0 2E
- [Bug 5877] need errata documents against 1.0 2E
- [Bug 5878] New: need errata documents against 1.0 2E
- [Bug 5877] New: need errata documents against 1.0 2E
- [Bug 5875] New: longName for elements, attributes and model groups
Tuesday, 15 July 2008
- [Bug 5372] Define bridge functions
- [Bug 3678] [SCD] SCDs for attribute uses and particles
- [Bug 2659] lc-2: simple barenames for schema component designators
- [Bug 3046] RQ-23 First class objects (first-class-obj)
- [Bug 3855] Use of "Default Axis" versus XPath
- [Bug 3680] [SCD] Path abbreviations confusing
- [Bug 5373] [SCD] Define accessors
- [Bug 2661] lc-4: LC comments
- [Bug 4449] How do you write an empty namespace prefix?
- [Bug 5375] [SCD] Regularize the grammar
- [Bug 5376] [SCD] Richer extension story
- [Bug 3684] [SCD] // confusing
- [Bug 5377] Requirement for metadata querying
- [Bug 5371] [SCD] Eliminate notion of 'elided steps'
- [Bug 3685] [SCD] (Editorial) Origanize by axes
- 3.2.17 of Part 2 and RFCs 3986/3987
Sunday, 13 July 2008
- [Bug 5862] New: Please retain redefine as well as override
- [Bug 5861] New: Elements with complex types should be allowed to have assertions
Wednesday, 9 July 2008
- Re: ISSUE-126 (Revisit Datatypes): A new proposal for the real <-> float <-> double conundrum
- RE: ISSUE-126 (Revisit Datatypes): A new proposal for the real <-> float <-> double conundrum
- RE: ISSUE-126 (Revisit Datatypes): A new proposal for the real <-> float <-> double conundrum
Tuesday, 8 July 2008
Monday, 7 July 2008
Tuesday, 8 July 2008
- RE: markup editorial: <div class="p">
- Re: markup editorial: <div class="p">
- Re: markup editorial: <div class="p">
- Re: ISSUE-126 (Revisit Datatypes): A new proposal for the real <-> float <-> double conundrum
- Re: ISSUE-126 (Revisit Datatypes): A new proposal for the real <-> float <-> double conundrum
Monday, 7 July 2008
- Re: ISSUE-126 (Revisit Datatypes): A new proposal for the real <-> float <-> double conundrum
- Re: ISSUE-126 (Revisit Datatypes): A new proposal for the real <-> float <-> double conundrum
- markup editorial: <div class="p">
Sunday, 6 July 2008
- Re: ISSUE-126 (Revisit Datatypes): A new proposal for the real <-> float <-> double conundrum
- RE: ISSUE-126 (Revisit Datatypes): A new proposal for the real <-> float <-> double conundrum
- RE: ISSUE-126 (Revisit Datatypes): A new proposal for the real <-> float <-> double conundrum
- RE: ISSUE-126 (Revisit Datatypes): A new proposal for the real <-> float <-> double conundrum
Saturday, 5 July 2008
- RE: ISSUE-126 (Revisit Datatypes): A new proposal for the real <-> float <-> double conundrum
- Re: ISSUE-126 (Revisit Datatypes): A new proposal for the real <-> float <-> double conundrum
- Re: ISSUE-126 (Revisit Datatypes): A new proposal for the real <-> float <-> double conundrum
- Re: Question about number types
Friday, 4 July 2008
- Re: Question about number types
- Re: ISSUE-126 (Revisit Datatypes): A new proposal for the real <-> float <-> double conundrum
- Re: Question about number types
- Re: Question about number types
- Re: Question about number types
- Re: Question about number types
- Re: Question about number types
- RE: Question about number types
- Re: Question about number types
- Re: Question about number types
- Re: Question about number types