1843 2005-08-12 00:16:52 +0000 RQ-141b: Editing intro paragraphs of Datatypes Sec 2 (Requirement) 2009-04-20 20:00:15 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Datatypes: XSD Part 2 1.1 only PC Windows 2000 CLOSED FIXED http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2005Jul/0001.html resolved P2 critical --- 1852 1 noah_mendelsohn w3c-xml-schema-wg cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 5398 0 noah_mendelsohn 2005-08-12 00:16:52 +0000 In email [1] I raised some concerns regarding the proposed text for chapter 2 of Datatypes as found in [2]. This was discussed at the August, 2005 F2F meeting of the Schema WG, at which I was asked to enter this "bug" report, the purpose of which is to remind us to finish the redrafting of that paragraph. Noah P.S. There should be a bugzilla entry for RQ-141b and this should depend on it. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2005Jul/0001.html [2] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-2/datatypes.rec12_main.20050622.html 5421 1 ht 2005-08-17 15:39:33 +0000 DaveP's suggested wording: In the context of schema processing, schemas include a mechanism for describing and controlling the derivation and definition of additional datatypes. This mechanism is described in Section 4. 5422 2 ht 2005-08-17 15:41:38 +0000 Sorry, I got the dependency backwards -- if A consists of A.1, A.2 etc., then A depends on A.1, not the other way around 5564 3 cmsmcq 2005-08-29 23:19:01 +0000 This will be addressed in the revised RQ-141b proposal the editors hope to bring to the Working Group this week. 5867 4 cmsmcq 2005-09-07 21:55:03 +0000 This issue is addressed by the omnibus wording proposal sent to the WG on 31 August 2005, and should be resolved by the WG's action on that omnibus proposal. The editing performed was: deleting the proposed insertion. The editors are informally of the opinion that it might be useful to provide some brief mention of simple type definitions, facets, etc. somewhere at the top of the spec (before the main body of part 3), but any proposal of that kind will be handled separately, not as part of RQ-141b. 7505 5 cmsmcq 2005-12-17 01:34:44 +0000 The relevant part of the omnibus proposal of 31 August was accepted without change or comment in September 2005, so I am marking this issue as resolved. 19298 6 davep 2008-03-05 14:00:26 +0000 The reporter was never formally requested to CLOSE or REOPEN this issue; this comment serves to make that request. If the resolution is acceptable, please CLOSE the issue; if not, please REOPEN it, including a comment explaining the remaining problem. If no response is received within two weeks, the issue will be routinely CLOSED.