- 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