- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:30:47 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6008 --- Comment #2 from John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com> 2009-04-14 14:30:46 --- FYI, the draft ends prematurely in the middle of 3.16.6.2 > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.b6008.html --- > [3] 6008 comments that I don't know how to address > 4.2.5.1 Licensing References to Components Across Namespaces > "external component references" - nb: in italics, but not a [Definition:], > though it sure looks like it wants to be one. > Harmonize with 4.2.5 text that uses "not inside" and "foreign". To clarify: either "external component references" is a definition, in which case it should be marked up and treated like all other definitions in this document, or it is not, in which case it should not be italicized. The italics suggests to average readers that those words constitute a term being defined, based on similar usage in other contexts where specific markup for definitions is less rigorous. > [4] 6008 comments that I don't understand > 3.4.2.6 Examples of Complex Type Definitions > FYI: 2nd Example box uses different style (no "intro" text at top) than > others surrounding it. Ignore it, not sure what I was thinking. Note that this first example lacks some sort of "code snippet" markup (with associated grey bkgrnd on screen) that others in this section do have. > 3.10.1 The Wildcard Schema Component > FYI: formatting glitch up-arrows appear around item 6 in the numbered list Ignore: I do not see them either now, using 1/30 draft. Possibly a browser rendering issue, since fixed. Same for following. 3.10.4.2 Wildcard allows Expanded Name > FYI: formatting glitch up-arrows appear around item 2 in the numbered list, > and around "Informally..." > 3.10.6.2 Wildcard Subset > FYI: formatting glitch up-arrows appear around item 3 in the numbered list -- 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 Tuesday, 14 April 2009 14:30:57 UTC