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 2499 - R-177: Should list of IDs be allowed?
Summary: R-177: Should list of IDs be allowed?
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Datatypes: XSD Part 2 (show other bugs)
Version: 1.1 only
Hardware: All All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL:
Whiteboard: medium, work, id/idref cluster
Keywords: resolved
Depends on: 2423
Blocks:
  Show dependency tree / graph
 
Reported: 2005-11-09 18:55 UTC by Sandy Gao
Modified: 2009-04-21 19:21 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:

Attachments

Description Sandy Gao 2005-11-09 18:55:51 UTC 
See the description from bug 2175. Depends on RQ-105.
Comment 1 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2006-01-04 15:15:10 UTC 
Together with bug 2175 this was discussed at the 2003-11-14 telecon. 
Ashok Malhotra to propose a note with a  clarification.

Proposed text:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2003Nov/0060.html 

Again discussed on 2005-11-04; status set back to needsDrafting as we 
don't know where to put it, and related issue of single/atomic bug 2423.

Status changed 2006-01-04 to agree with that of bug 2175.
Comment 2 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2006-09-21 00:00:30 UTC 
At the face to face meeting of January 2006 in St. Petersburg,
the Working Group decided not to take further action on this
issue in XML Schema 1.1.  (This issue was not discussed
separately; it was one of those which were dispatched by a
blanket decision that all other open issues would be closed
without action, unless raised again in last-call comments.)  Some
members of the Working Group expressed regret over not being able
to resolve all the issues dealt with in this way, but on the
whole the Working Group felt it better not to delay Datatypes 1.1
in order to resolve all of them.

This issue should have been marked as RESOLVED /WONTFIX at that
time, but apparently was not.  I am marking it that way now, to
reduce confusion.