1853 2005-08-17 15:47:42 +0000 RQ-141b define and use "ancestor" in mapping rules for simple type defns (Requirement) 2008-03-05 14:41:02 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Datatypes: XSD Part 2 1.1 only PC Windows XP CLOSED FIXED http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2005Aug/0020.html resolved P2 critical --- 1852 1 ht w3c-xml-schema-wg www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 5424 0 ht 2005-08-17 15:47:42 +0000 ACTION 20050809-06: Editors to (a) Define "ancestor" (non-reflexively) (b) use it to {define primitive type definition} property (c) get rid of the definition of "type derived from" or align with definition for simple types. 5425 1 ht 2005-08-17 16:26:54 +0000 I've drafted a resolution to (a) and (b) above, distribution to the WG is pending agreement about mechanics with the other editors. I believe Michael and DaveP have to decide what to do about (c). 5565 2 cmsmcq 2005-08-29 23:40:31 +0000 I note that in HT's draft wording, the definition of "derived from" for simple type( definition)s has been eliminated. I think we can live with that, although if we later discover that we need the term, we can resurrect it. (If we do, though, we should align it with the definition of the term "derived from" for datatypes, which appears in section 2. 7506 3 cmsmcq 2005-12-17 01:37:12 +0000 A definition of ancestor was included in the omnibus proposal sent to the Working Group 31 August 2005; the relevant parts of the proposal were approved in September 2005. They have now been integrated into the status quo document, so I am marking this issue resolved. I do not know whether this marks the last remaining thing to do on bug 1852 or not, so I am leaving bug 1852 untouched for now. 7515 4 davep 2005-12-17 03:43:06 +0000 (In reply to comment #3) > A definition of ancestor was included in the omnibus proposal > sent to the Working Group 31 August 2005; the relevant parts of > the proposal were approved in September 2005. They have now > been integrated into the status quo document, so I am marking > this issue resolved. I had the feeling that the intent of this requirement was not only to introduce the term but also to go through the document to see if there are other places where it can be used to simplify wording that was correct but convoluted. I wonder if Henry actually has made such a pass. 19301 5 davep 2008-03-05 14:41:02 +0000 Since really the WG introduced this bug, and no one has complained about the resolution in over a year, I'm marking it closed.