- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 02:18:44 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6707 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |WORKSFORME --- Comment #1 from C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> 2009-04-18 02:18:44 --- The XML Schema WG discussed this issue on today's telcon. The originator of the comment has been informed of the result in email archived at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2009AprJun/0111.html which reads: Thank you for the comment. The XML Schema WG discussed this issue on its telcon this morning, and concurred with Michael Kay's analysis of the situation, which is that this is not actually an error in the spec but just one instance of a general fact about the descriptions of our lexical spaces: satisfying the descriptions is typically a necessary but not a sufficient condition of type validity; the examples of byte, short, int, etc. are perhaps the most obvious cases of this. Please let us know if you agree with this resolution of your issue, by adding a comment to the issue record at http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6707 and changing the Status of the issue to Closed. Or, if you do not agree with this resolution, please add a comment explaining why. If you wish to appeal the WG's decision to the Director, then also change the Status of the record to Reopened. If you wish to record your dissent, but do not wish to appeal the decision to the Director, then change the Status of the record to Closed. (It's slightly more convenient for the WG if you respond in Bugzilla, but if necessary you can reply to this email, instead.) If we do not hear from you in the next ten days or so, we will assume you agree with the WG decision. -- 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 Saturday, 18 April 2009 02:18:54 UTC