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 5526 - What does "nested to any depth" mean?
Summary: What does "nested to any depth" mean?
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: SML
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Core (show other bugs)
Version: LC
Hardware: PC Windows NT
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Virginia Smith
QA Contact: SML Working Group discussion list
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: externalComments, reviewerSatisfied
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2008-03-04 16:52 UTC by Pratul Dublish
Modified: 2008-06-25 09:32 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments

Description Pratul Dublish 2008-03-04 16:52:43 UTC 
Minor comment from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2008Mar/0001.html

4.5.1.2: The phrase "nested to any depth" doesn't make any sense to
me???
Comment 1 Pratul Dublish 2008-03-06 17:15:42 UTC 
This comment is about the following sentence in 5.2.1.2

"The sml:selector XPath allows smlfn:deref() functions, nested to any depth, at the beginning of the expression."

Suggest rewording.
Comment 2 Kumar Pandit 2008-03-06 20:55:04 UTC 
resolution (3/6 conf call): 

proposal:
change the relevant text,
from:
nested to any depth

to:
with function calls nested to any depth

The SML WG believes that the above proposal resolves 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.
Comment 3 Virginia Smith 2008-04-10 18:27:55 UTC 
The section in LC draft is 5.2.1.2.
Resolution 4/10 - change both occurrences with new text per comment #2.
Comment 4 Kumar Pandit 2008-05-15 19:51:04 UTC 
Henry, can you please let us know if the resolution in comment# 2 is acceptable to you?
Comment 5 Henry S. Thompson 2008-06-25 09:31:35 UTC 
I am happy that the revised wording addresses my initial concern