3233 2006-05-09 10:07:22 +0000 Space-separation in lists 2007-09-18 02:56:20 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Datatypes: XSD Part 2 1.1 only PC Windows XP RESOLVED FIXED medium, easy P2 normal --- 1 mike cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 9645 0 mike 2006-05-09 10:07:22 +0000 In 2.6.1.2, in the paragraph after the first example, it might be useful to replace "space" by "whitespace", since we're talking about value spaces and lexical spaces in the same breath. In fact, the way the spec explains that the lexical representation of a list value is a whitespace-separated sequence of literals representing the items is pretty obscure: the paragraph that precedes the second example should come earlier in the section. 9873 1 davep 2006-05-19 22:42:42 +0000 (In reply to comment #0) > In 2.6.1.2, in the paragraph after the first example, it might be useful > to replace "space" by "whitespace", since we're talking about value spaces > and lexical spaces in the same breath. I don't know how that would help. The sentence saying "space-separated" is talking solely about the lexical space, and lexical representations of list values *always* have multiple item lexical representations separated by one space character, not arbitrary whitespace. For better or for worse, whitespace processing occurs *before* the literal is considered for membership in the lexical space. (Lists always have whitespace "collapse".) > In fact, the way the spec explains > that the lexical representation of a list value is a whitespace-separated > sequence of literals representing the items is pretty obscure: the paragraph > that precedes the second example should come earlier in the section. Perhaps that sentence should read "Since ·list· items are separated at space characters before the ·lexical representations· of the items are mapped to values (and separating space characters are the only whitespace that can occur), no whitespace will ever occur in the ·lexical representation· of a ·list· item, even when the item type would in principle allow it." 9881 2 mike 2006-05-22 12:29:58 +0000 These comments were editorial. I think that in the phrase "datatype whose ·lexical space· allows space " it's unreasonably demanding on your readers to use the word "space" twice within three words with totally unrelated meanings. 9883 3 davep 2006-05-22 13:48:03 +0000 (In reply to comment #2) > These comments were editorial. I think that in the phrase "datatype whose > ·lexical space· allows space " it's unreasonably demanding on your readers to > use the word "space" twice within three words with totally unrelated meanings. Ah! We can certainly consider "datatype whose ·lexical space· allows space characters". 14542 4 davep 2007-03-26 20:03:42 +0000 (In reply to comment #3) > Ah! We can certainly consider "datatype whose ·lexical space· allows space > characters". It has been pointed out to me that, since we are here talking about the item datatype rather than the list datatype, the datatype we are talking about may well (e.g., string) allow other witespace characters than the space character in its lexical space, so we are going with "allows whitespace." I expect this will be approved at the FTF this week. 14609 5 davep 2007-03-31 04:17:45 +0000 On 30 March the WG agreed to change 'datatype whose ·lexical space· allows space' to 'datatype whose ·lexical space· allows whitespace' (i.e., simply changing the unadorned 'space' to 'whitespace') in the paragraph after the first example in 2.6.1.2. This bug should have the Keyword 'decided', but it appears I don't have the authority to do so. Bugzilla says "only the assignee or reporter of the bug, or a sufficiently empowered user may change that field". 16656 6 cmsmcq 2007-09-18 02:56:20 +0000 The change proposed above was approved by the WG on 30 March 2007 at its face to face meeting in Cambridge. 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.