- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:33:15 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5156 --- Comment #9 from John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com> 2009-10-26 15:33:15 --- So I can explain this correctly to the SML wg, am I correct in thinking that the wording proposal in comment 7 handles the issues raised in comment 4 in the following ways? > If PSC is such a horrid phrase, someone will have to explain to me/us the > existence of "3.9.1 The Particle Schema Component" no response > to : is prohibited. no change made (looking the wording proposal, fwiw I'd agree with "no change") > to : what would have been an {attribute use} no change made > to : had not specified no change made > (still on 3.2.2) Here is how I am reading it, in case I'm wildly wrong again. > I might be tempted to add something like this to the new 3.2.2 text. > "In other words, the case where the {base type definition} T allowed the > {attribute use} but the restriction prohibits it." note added, wording amended in comment 8 > 2.1.3 I prefer KISS to fancy writing when things are this complex. no change made -- 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, 26 October 2009 15:33:17 UTC