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 5059 - XDM should be referenced normatively
Summary: XDM should be referenced normatively
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Structures: XSD Part 1 (show other bugs)
Version: 1.1 only
Hardware: Macintosh All
: P2 minor
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL:
Whiteboard: typo+ cluster
Keywords: resolved
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2007-09-18 22:21 UTC by C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Modified: 2008-02-08 19:56 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2007-09-18 22:21:38 UTC
Since the rules for evaluating assertions and conditional type
assignment tests involve construction of an XDM data model
instance following the rules in the XDM spec, the reference to
the XDM spec should be normative, not non-normative.

This is, I think, just an editorial slip.  When the reference 
was added (20 October 2006, as part of a consent agenda)
it was placed in the wrong location.
Comment 1 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2008-02-04 16:17:23 UTC
In an effort to make better use of Bugzilla, we are going to use the
'severity' field to classify issues by perceived difficulty.  This 
bug is getting severity=minor to reflect the existing whiteboard note
'easy'. 
Comment 2 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2008-02-08 02:20:01 UTC
A wording proposal including changes for this issue went to the WG
on 7 February 2008:

  http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.consent.200801.html#composition

(member-only link).
Comment 3 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2008-02-08 19:56:02 UTC
The 'Structures Omnibus 1' proposal mentioned in an earlier comment
was adopted by the XML Schema Working Group today.

http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.consent.200801.html (member-only link)

The XML Schema WG believes that the changes adopted today resolve this
issue fully.  I'm changing its status accordingly.

The change in status should cause email to be sent to the originator of
this issue, to whom the following request is addressed.

Please review the changes adopted and let us know if you agree with this resolution of your issue, by adding a comment to the issue record and changing the Status of the issue to Closed. Or, if you do not agree with this resolution, please add a comment explaining why. If you wish to appeal the WG's decision to the Director, then also change the Status of the record to Reopened. If you wish to record your dissent, but do not wish to appeal the decision to the Director, then change the Status of the record to Closed. If we do not hear from you in the next two weeks, we will assume you agree with the WG decision.