2521 2005-11-14 02:56:18 +0000 Numbering regular expressions in Appendix H 2009-10-23 16:10:55 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Datatypes: XSD Part 2 1.1 only All All CLOSED FIXED cluster: presentation resolved P2 normal --- 1 sandygao cmsmcq cmsmcq David_E3 www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 7175 0 sandygao 2005-11-14 02:56:19 +0000 Regular expressions are numbered starting from 42 in [1]. Seems that regular expressions in section 3 are counted but not numbered. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#regexs 12608 1 davep 2006-10-25 14:12:16 +0000 I'm not aware that we ever use the numbers as, e.g., part of a reference; the productions are always referred by linked name only, even those in the appendix which are numbered. Perhaps we should just delete the numbers everywhere as the easiest way to avoid the anomaly described. 25091 2 cmsmcq 2009-05-09 15:30:34 +0000 A proposal to resolve this issue by numbering all grammar productions has been placed on the server at http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-2/datatypes.b2521.html [member-only link] This proposal has not been reviewed by the other editors and does not necessarily carry editorial consensus. (In particular, it runs directly counter to the solution offered in comment 1.) For technical reasons (the numbers in question are generated by the stylesheet) the actual changes are not marked in color. A search for the string "::=" in the status quo document and the proposal will illustrate the changes. The production rule for stringRep in section 3.3.12, for example, reads, in the status quo: Lexical Space stringRep ::= Char* /* (as defined in [XML]) */ In the change proposal, it reads Lexical Space [1] stringRep ::= Char* /* (as defined in [XML]) */ My experience as a reader is that the number of grammar productions is helpful, so I do not wish to adopt the proposal in comment 1 to suppress them for all productions. On the contrary, I think it is a modest improvement in the spec to number the other productions in the spec. 25092 3 davep 2009-05-09 18:28:13 +0000 (In reply to comment #2) > My experience as a reader is that the number of grammar productions is helpful, > so I do not wish to adopt the proposal in comment 1 to suppress them for all > productions. On the contrary, I think it is a modest improvement in the spec > to number the other productions in the spec. For the record, I (as the author of comment #1, suggesting removing all numbers) have no problem with this alternative. I only recommended dropping them because the productions are always referenced by LHS nonterminal name rather than by number *in the spec*. If they're useful outside the spec, by all means lets keep the numbers. 25369 4 David_E3 2009-05-29 16:08:16 +0000 RESOLUTION: adopt 2521 proposal at http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-2/datatypes.b2521.html 25989 5 cmsmcq 2009-07-15 21:16:11 +0000 The change described in comment 2 has now been integrated into the status-quo documents. I am accordingly marking this issue resolved. Sandy, as the originator, if you would signal your acceptance or rejection of this resolution by closing or reopening the bug in the usual manner, it would be helpful. If the working group does not hear otherwise from you in the next two weeks, we will assume that you are content with the disposition of this comment.