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 In 3.3.19.1 (QName) the length/minLength/maxLength facets are deprecated. That tells users to avoid them. But it doesn't tell implementors what to do. If these facets are used in a schema, should the processor simply ignore them? What do they actually mean? Why not say explicitly that they have no effect? [It's reasonable to deprecate a facility whose meaning in previous versions was unclear: but deprecating it can't be used as justification for leaving it unclear in the current version.]
The description of length, minLength, and maxLength in sections 4.3.1.3, 4.3.2.3, and 4.3.3.3 of Datatypes provides the information whose absence is lamented here (namely, that the length, minLength, and maxLength facets are always satisfied for any candidate literals being tested for membership in types QName, NOTATION, or any types derived from them). To make this more easily detectable by the reader, I propose to change the wording of the relevant paragraphs in 3.3.19.1 (QName) and 3.3.20.1 (NOTATION). They currently read The use of ·length·, ·minLength· and ·maxLength· on ↑QName or↑ datatypes derived from QName is deprecated. Future versions of this specification may remove these facets for this datatype. I propose to add, after the word "deprecated", the sentence "These facets are meaningless for these types, and so all instances are facet-valid with respect to them." Also change "this datatype" to "these datatypes". The result is a paragraph reading The use of length, minLength and maxLength on QName or datatypes derived from QName is deprecated. These facets are meaningless for such types, and so all instances are facet-valid with respect to them. Future versions of this specification may remove these facets for these datatypes. I'm changing this issue to needsReview to reflect the existence of this proposal. It should be noted, however, that the proposal has not yet had the normal full editorial review.
A wording proposal for this issue (among others) was placed on the server on 4 February 2008 at http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-2/datatypes.omnibus.200801.html (member-only link).
The wording proposal mentioned in an earlier comment was considered and adopted today by the XML Schema Working Group. Accordingly, I'm marking this issue resolved. Since the originator of the issue is a member of the WG, the adoption of the proposal by the WG is probably sufficient evidence that the originator is content with the WG's resolution of the issue. But if the editors don't get around to it, it would be convenient if the originator could take the time to shift the status of the issue from RESOLVED to CLOSED. Thanks.