[Bug 3264] xs:anyURI definition

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3264





--- Comment #10 from Dave Peterson <davep@iit.edu>  2009-04-13 20:09:09 ---
(In reply to comment #7)

> So I propose to amend my proposed amendment to the wording
> proposal to include analogous changes in hexBinary and
> base64Binary, from
> 
>     ...  the set of possibly empty finite-length sequences of 
>     binary octets 
> 
> to 
> 
>     ...  the set of finite-length sequences of zero or more 
>     binary octets
> 
> The press of time is a good reason for not going out of our
> way to find minor improvement to the spec and raise new
> issues about them.  But in this case we have an issue and need
> to change the spec in either case; if we can do so without
> delaying the WG I don't see that we should not try to make
> the wording as clear as we can, in the time available.

In which case:  Presumably a binary octet is a sequence of bits.  A sequence of
sequences of bits is not a sequence of bits, since a bit is not a sequence of
bits.  (Please, let's not violate the axiom of regularity!) Therefore, a
finite-length sequence of zero or more binary octets is not a sequence of bits.
 What we want is the concatenation of all the terms of the sequence.  So:

   ... the set of finite-length concatenations of sequences of zero
   or more binary octets.

or "the set of finite-length bit-strings of zero or more binary octets"
(because concatenation is generally implied for strings but not sequences;
that's one of the more important connotational distinctions between strings and
sequences).

And that's why I didn't want to start the slippery slope.


-- 
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 Monday, 13 April 2009 20:09:19 UTC