2744 2006-01-20 21:19:29 +0000 wd-18: Duplicate normative parts in Part 1 (3.14) and 2 (4.1) 2009-05-01 18:58:23 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Datatypes: XSD Part 2 1.0 only PC Windows XP REOPENED needsAgreement P2 normal --- 1 holstege cmsmcq cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 7908 0 holstege 2006-01-20 21:19:29 +0000 Both in 1.0 2E and 1.1 (both FPWD and our current internal drafts) there is an overlap of both subject matter and prose between these two sections. Furthermore, some of the duplicated prose is implicitly normative in both Parts. We should do a careful survey of this, and make sure that the disposition between the two Parts is optimal. Proposal concerning Part 1 Simple Type Definition (Part 1) Part 2 Simple Type Definition (Part 2) Transition history raised on 8 Nov 2004 by Henry S. Thompson (ht@inf.ed.ac.uk) (http://lists.w3. org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2004OctDec/0021.html) 11907 1 cmsmcq 2006-09-20 23:48:59 +0000 The 1.1 side of this issue was resolved at the ftf meeting in January 2006 (as a result of adopting the change proposal(s) for bug 1852). So I'm changing the version field in this issue from 1.0/1.1 both to 1.0 only. 11921 2 cmsmcq 2006-09-21 00:00:30 +0000 At the face to face meeting of January 2006 in St. Petersburg, the Working Group decided not to take further action on this issue in XML Schema 1.1. (This issue was not discussed separately; it was one of those which were dispatched by a blanket decision that all other open issues would be closed without action, unless raised again in last-call comments.) Some members of the Working Group expressed regret over not being able to resolve all the issues dealt with in this way, but on the whole the Working Group felt it better not to delay Datatypes 1.1 in order to resolve all of them. This issue should have been marked as RESOLVED /WONTFIX at that time, but apparently was not. I am marking it that way now, to reduce confusion. 24991 3 cmsmcq 2009-05-01 18:58:23 +0000 Since this is a 1.0-only bug, the mass change mentioned in comment 2 should NOT have closed it. I'm reopening it accordingly.