- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 17:55:56 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11961
C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |needsAgreement
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> 2011-02-02 17:55:55 UTC ---
Thank you; good points.
On (c), I think I disagree. It seems intuitively clear to me (at
least) that the value 'collapse' is more restrictive than the
value 'preserve', with 'replace' in the middle between them, if
only in the sense that moving from 'preserve' to 'replace' to
'collapse' effectively removes literals from the lexical space.
(We noticed some time ago that the spec is not as clear or
explicit on this as it ought to be, but decided to let sleeping
dogs lie. But regardless of whether, formally, the shift from
'preserve' to 'replace' eliminates strings containing 
 from
the lexical space, it at the very least makes them a lot harder
to write in a document.)
Of course, its being clear to me is no indication that it will be
clear to any reader not steeped in years of WG casuistry. But
I find it hard to formulate an effective revision here because I
have not been able to persuade myself to find the current
wording confusing or counter-intuitive. Anyone who does find
the current wording unfortunate can help either by explaining
as well as they can the nature of their confusion in more
detail, or (perhaps more easily) by suggesting alternative
wording they would find less confusing.
--
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 Wednesday, 2 February 2011 17:56:00 UTC