2408 2005-10-21 16:47:25 +0000 Consistency need wrt "forbidden" and "must be absent" 2009-04-21 19:21:40 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Datatypes: XSD Part 2 1.1 only All All CLOSED FIXED resolved P2 normal --- 1 sandygao cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 6859 0 sandygao 2005-10-21 16:47:25 +0000 In the published 1.1 datatypes draft http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-2/datatypes.html {primitive type definition} ..., otherwise forbidden. {item type definition} ..., otherwise forbidden. {member type definitions} ..., otherwise must be absent. I think they should be consistent and all say "must be absent". This also applies to {referenced key} for identity constraints in part 1. 12960 1 davep 2006-11-18 02:02:24 +0000 Approved by the WG; awaiting incorporation into the status quo document. 16637 2 cmsmcq 2007-09-18 00:40:02 +0000 The change proposed above was approved by the WG in its call of 17 November 2006. It is now reflected in the status quo version of the Datatypes spec. Accordingly, I am setting the disposition of this issue to RESOLVED / FIXED. If the originator of the issue would examine the change and let us know whether it satisfactorily resolves the problem or not, we'd be grateful. To signal that the resolution is acceptable, change the status of the issue to CLOSED. Otherwise, to signal that it's NOT acceptable, change the status to REOPENED (and tell us what's wrong). If we don't hear from you in the next three weeks, we'll assume that silence betokens consent, and close the issue ourselves.