RE: Regex in Datatypes 2e

To follow up on this:

Issue 1 is

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5486

Issue 2 is

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5818

I suggest you add yourself to the cc list for both these bugs

Michael Kay
Saxonica
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-xml-schema-comments-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-xml-schema-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Michael Kay
> Sent: 25 October 2008 09:42
> To: 'James Clark'; www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Regex in Datatypes 2e
> 
> 
> These are known issues, though without very satisfactory 
> resolutions (yet).
> They are logged in the W3C Bugzilla database, but I can't get 
> a connection to the W3C server this morning, so I can't give 
> you chapter and verse. 
> 
> > 
> > 1.  The non-BMP blocks (such as Gothic) seem to have 
> disappeared from 
> > the table of block names in F.1.1 in the 2nd edition.
> 
> Michael Sperberg-McQueen diligently investigated the history 
> of this and came to the conclusion that they must have been 
> omitted as a result of an editorial error rather than as a 
> conscious WG decision.
> > 
> > 2. There are a couple of notes saying "All .minimally conforming. 
> > processors .must. support the character properties/blocks 
> defined in 
> > the version of [Unicode Database] that is current at the time this 
> > specification became a W3C Recommendation".  Does this mean 
> the time 
> > of publication of the 1st edition (3.1) or the time of 
> publication of 
> > the 2nd edition (4.0)?
> 
> The intent of the WG, I believe, was that the Schema spec 
> should pick up new revisions of Unicode automatically, 
> without requiring the Schema spec itself to be changed. 
> However, I believe that at the time this policy decision was 
> made, the WG was unaware of the fact that this would 
> invalidate existing schemas because of changes in the block 
> names (another serious one is that "Greek" has become 
> "GreekAndCoptic"). Another impact is that some characters 
> have been moved to a different character category. I don't 
> think the WG has yet found an answer to this problem.
> 
> Michael Kay
> (personal response)  
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 28 October 2008 12:07:57 UTC