- 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