- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 01:28:03 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6734 --- Comment #3 from Dave Peterson <davep@iit.edu> 2009-04-09 01:28:02 --- (In reply to comment #2) > It's not clear to me why whitespace should be removed from the 'may also > specify' list. Is it illegal to specify whitespace=collapse when restricting a > list datatype? Of course not. Just should be specified fixed="true" (as we did a few months ago for most of the primitives). That way it gets the lead-in "these facets must not be changed from the values shown" rather than "these facets may be further restricted in the derivation of new types" (which really suggests that it can be *changed*, not just *specified*). And it *should* be listed as having a value, not just available to be given a value in a subsequent derivation (which is what the "may also specify values for" list is about). -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 9 April 2009 01:28:13 UTC