This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
QT approved comment. (Note, in all these comments I am using section numbers as they appear in the change-highlighted version of the document). For completeness it might be worth mentioning in 2.4 that every value in the value space of a datatype has at least one lexical representation: ff indeed this is true (see discussion on union and list types below). In the first sentence of 2.4.1 the word "generally" is misused to mean "usually". In 2.6.1.2 I would expect a more formal statement that the value space of a list type is the set of sequences of values of the item type, minus any values of the item type all of whose lexical representations contain whitespace. In 2.6.1.3: is it true that the value space of a union type is the union of the value spaces of the basic member types? Possibly not, because if there are lexical representations shared by the member value spaces, then values of some of the member types may become "unreachable", in which case they are presumably excluded from the value space (because every value must have at least one lexical representation).
(In reply to comment #0) > In 2.6.1.3: is it true that the value space of a union type is the union > of the value spaces of the basic member types? Possibly not, because if > there are lexical representations shared by the member value spaces, then > values of some of the member types may become "unreachable", in which case > they are presumably excluded from the value space (because every value must > have at least one lexical representation). This part of the comment duplicates bug 3229. The solution is actually covered in the discussion under bug 3025, which subsumes bug 3229.
A wording proposal intended to resolve this issue is available at http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-2/datatypes.b3025.html (member-only link).
The wording proposal mentioned in comment #3 was adopted by the XML Schema WG on its telcon today. Accordingly, I'm marking this issue resolved. Michael, as the originator of the issue, I hope you will (a) report back to the QT groups on its resolution and (b) signal your and their assent to this decision by changing the status of the bug to CLOSED, or your dissent by reopening it. If we have not heard from you within the next two weeks or so, we will assume that silence implies consent.