This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 2435 - Clarify mapping rule for {item type definition} and {member type definitions}
Summary: Clarify mapping rule for {item type definition} and {member type definitions}
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Datatypes: XSD Part 2 (show other bugs)
Version: 1.1 only
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL: http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2005/09/x...
Whiteboard:
Keywords: resolved
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-11-03 12:08 UTC by Henry S. Thompson
Modified: 2006-01-28 18:25 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Henry S. Thompson 2005-11-03 12:08:52 UTC
Existing terminology runs backwards
Fix agreed (strictly speaking only for {item type definition}, but intent was
parallel for {member type definitions} at f2f 2005-09-26
Comment 1 Henry S. Thompson 2005-11-03 12:11:16 UTC
Resolution for {member type definitions} recorded at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2005/09/xml-schema-ftf-minutes.html#d0e1046
Comment 2 Henry S. Thompson 2005-11-04 11:52:03 UTC
WG gave explicit wording for {item type definition} -- parallel for {member type
definitions} is not exact, MSM please review before final publication.
Comment 3 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2005-12-28 01:56:01 UTC
The changes drafted in obedience to the WG's decision in
Edinburgh are in the status quo document of 16 December 2005.
Reviewing them today, I noticed (a) the request that I 
check them over carefully before integrating them into the
status quo (sorry, too late for that now), and (b) some
minor improvements I'd like to propose to the wording.

The proposed changes to the wording should probably be
sent to the WG as an editorial proposal; accordingly,
I'm changing this from 'decided' to 'needsPublication',
and leaving it unresolved.  If the WG chair feels that 
the changes in question fall within the scope of purely
editorial responsibility, then these changes just need
review by the other editors and then integration into
the status quo.
Comment 4 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2006-01-10 02:31:17 UTC
A proposal has been sent to the WG.  It's at 
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-2/datatypes.b2435.20060110.html
(member-only link).
Comment 5 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2006-01-28 18:25:55 UTC
The proposal was adopted 20 January 2006 and is now
in the status quo documents.