- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:07:36 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6707 jboyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |boyerj@ca.ibm.com --- Comment #2 from jboyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com> 2009-04-20 20:07:36 --- I agree that the lexical space definition is not sufficient for validation. As an example, the earlier email from Michael Kay mentioned the inability of the lexical space definition to enforce range constraints on integers. But it is a well-known limitation that reasonable regular expressions cannot encode range constraints, which is why I did not ask for this. Yet, because of the close association of "lexical" and "regular expression" commonly used in computing, it is reasonable to expect that some editing effort would be expended to correct the descriptions of the lexical spaces of data types when there are simple and obvious regular expressions that do a better job of characterizing the lexical space. I agree it is an editorial fix, i.e. that the correctness of a schema validator is not ultimately affected here, but it's not clear why this feedback would receive less attention than a grammatical error, a missing word or a misspelled word. It seems to be more of technical error than any of those other editorial examples, which would surely get addressed. I am not really sure how to change the status of this issue so that I may find out the response of the working group to this additional comment. -- 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, 20 April 2009 20:07:44 UTC