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 3238 - Unnecessary self-justification
Summary: Unnecessary self-justification
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:
Whiteboard: thimble, easy; do-it cluster
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-05-09 10:16 UTC by Michael Kay
Modified: 2007-09-18 02:56 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Michael Kay 2006-05-09 10:16:57 UTC
QT approved comment:

In 2.6.2, the sentence "It is felt that a judiciously chosen set of
.primitive. datatypes will serve..." is unnecessary (and slightly pompous) self-justification: tell the reader what you've decided and leave them to decide whether you've got it right.
Comment 1 Dave Peterson 2007-04-02 15:18:20 UTC
On 30 Mar the WG decided to delete the paragraph in 2.6.2 beginning "It is felt that a judiciously chosen set..." and add a sentence at the end of the first paragraph reading "The datatypes defined by this specification fall into these categories."
Comment 2 Dave Peterson 2007-07-28 02:49:26 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> On 30 Mar the WG decided to delete the paragraph in 2.6.2 beginning "It is felt
> that a judiciously chosen set..." and add a sentence at the end of the first
> paragraph reading "The datatypes defined by this specification fall into these
> categories."
> 

Well, that's the second sentence, but the whole para is deleted.  The semantics of the first sentence are retained in the addition to the first para.
Comment 3 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2007-09-18 02:56:20 UTC
The change proposed above was approved by the WG on 30 March 2007
at its face to face meeting in Cambridge.  It is now reflected in 
the status quo version of the Datatypes spec.  Accordingly, I am 
setting the disposition of this issue to RESOLVED / FIXED.

If the originator of the issue would examine the change and let 
us know whether it satisfactorily resolves the problem or not, 
we'd be grateful.   To signal that the resolution is acceptable, 
change the status of the issue to CLOSED.  Otherwise, to signal 
that it's NOT acceptable, change the status to REOPENED (and 
tell us what's wrong).

If we don't hear from you in the next three weeks, we'll assume 
that silence betokens consent, and close the issue ourselves.