- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:06:22 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6008
David Ezell <David_E3@VERIFONE.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |David_E3@VERIFONE.com
Keywords|needsReview |decided
--- Comment #4 from David Ezell <David_E3@VERIFONE.com> 2009-04-17 16:06:21 ---
6008 (John Arwe): [schema11] small presumably editorial bugs.
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.b6008.html
Summary: several small stylistic fixes.
There has been discussion in Bugzilla; amendments are needed.
SG's recommendation: We only have a partial proposal. I can
review items I didn't cover to see whether there is anything else
I can do.
MSM's recommendations: quick.
- In 4.2.5.1, deal with John's first point by untagging the
phrase 'external component references'. The sentence then
reads
Thus, the <import> element information item identifies
namespaces used in external component references,
i.e. those whose ·QName· identifies them as coming from a
namespace different from that of the enclosing schema
document's targetNamespace.
The only different from status quo is that 'external
component references' is roman, not italic.
- In 2.2.3.1, for the item that now reads
Disjunction (the element information items match one of
the particles).
Do NOT adopt JA's proposal
Disjunction (the element information items match exactly
one of the particles).
Instead, write
Disjunction (the element information items match one or
more of the particles).
for the reasons given in bug 6008 comment 3.
- Adopt what we have, note that issue is editorial, come back
to it (and deal with more of it?) after CR.
Sandy has provided a pointer that enumerates the parts of this issue that are
to be done later.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2009Mar/0005.html
--
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 Friday, 17 April 2009 16:06:32 UTC