10008 2010-06-24 11:47:12 +0000 Use of Unicode blocks that no longer exist in regular expressions. 2010-11-10 17:22:38 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Datatypes: XSD Part 2 1.0/1.1 both PC Windows NT CLOSED DUPLICATE 5948 P2 normal --- 5818 1 oliver David_E3 cmsmcq mike www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 36402 0 oliver 2010-06-24 11:47:12 +0000 Section F.1.1 states the following: Note: [Unicode Database] is subject to future revision. For example, the grouping of code points into blocks might be updated. All ·minimally conforming· processors ·must· support the blocks defined in the version of [Unicode Database] that is current at the time this specification became a W3C Recommendation. However, implementors are encouraged to support the blocks defined in any future version of the Unicode Standard. Unfortunately some of these blocks no longer exist in the current Unicode specification! I believe the changes are limited to the following: CombiningMarksforSymbols is now CombiningDiacriticalMarksforSymbols Greek is now GreekandCoptic PrivateUse has been split into three groups (we think): PrivateUseArea, SupplementaryPrivateUseAreaA and SupplementaryPrivateUseAreaB. The behaviour for these old group names is left a bit vague. I suggest that the correct behaviour should be one of the following, but this is not specified anywhere: 1) The old block names should no longer be valid. This is a direct contradiction with the specification and would cause compatibility problems. 2) The old names should refer to groups in an older version of the Unicode specification that did have them. In particular I suggest that this should be the version used in the Schema specification. 3) The old names should map to the equivalent groups in the newer version of the specification. I can't find this mapping specified anywhere, but I believe it to be as described above (at least for the current version). 36403 1 mike 2010-06-24 12:13:04 +0000 *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 5948 *** 42363 2 David_E3 2010-11-10 17:22:38 +0000 The WG reported this bug as DUPLICATE on 2010-06-24. We are closing this bug as requiring no futher work. If there are issues remaining, you can reopen this bug and enter a comment to indicate the problem. Thanks very much for the feedback. Comment 1 contains a reference to the duplicate bug.