<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes" ?>
<!DOCTYPE bugzilla SYSTEM "https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/page.cgi?id=bugzilla.dtd">

<bugzilla version="5.0.4"
          urlbase="https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/"
          
          maintainer="sysbot+bugzilla@w3.org"
>

    <bug>
          <bug_id>3240</bug_id>
          
          <creation_ts>2006-05-09 10:21:16 +0000</creation_ts>
          <short_desc>Editorial observations on section 2</short_desc>
          <delta_ts>2009-02-13 00:03:18 +0000</delta_ts>
          <reporter_accessible>1</reporter_accessible>
          <cclist_accessible>1</cclist_accessible>
          <classification_id>1</classification_id>
          <classification>Unclassified</classification>
          <product>XML Schema</product>
          <component>Datatypes: XSD Part 2</component>
          <version>1.1 only</version>
          <rep_platform>PC</rep_platform>
          <op_sys>Windows XP</op_sys>
          <bug_status>CLOSED</bug_status>
          <resolution>FIXED</resolution>
          
          
          <bug_file_loc></bug_file_loc>
          <status_whiteboard>cluster: clarification, presentation</status_whiteboard>
          <keywords>editorial</keywords>
          <priority>P2</priority>
          <bug_severity>normal</bug_severity>
          <target_milestone>---</target_milestone>
          
          
          <everconfirmed>1</everconfirmed>
          <reporter name="Michael Kay">mike</reporter>
          <assigned_to name="C. M. Sperberg-McQueen">cmsmcq</assigned_to>
          <cc>davep</cc>
          
          <qa_contact name="XML Schema comments list">www-xml-schema-comments</qa_contact>

      

      

      

          <comment_sort_order>oldest_to_newest</comment_sort_order>  
          <long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>9652</commentid>
    <comment_count>0</comment_count>
    <who name="Michael Kay">mike</who>
    <bug_when>2006-05-09 10:21:16 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>QT approved comment:

Generally, 2.6.3 seems well constructed, but it seems to repeat a lot of
material that has already been covered in 2.6.2 and 2.6.1.

Looking at section 2 overall, it might seem worth making an early
mention of the fact that the literals used as input to the mapping function
for a datatype are not the literals as written in an instance document, but
the literals that result from applying whitespace normalization rules.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>17201</commentid>
    <comment_count>1</comment_count>
    <who name="Michael Kay">mike</who>
    <bug_when>2007-10-14 22:12:23 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>Note that comment #0 uses the section numbering of the document version with change highlighting; for section 2.6, read section 2.4 in the version without change marks.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>22751</commentid>
    <comment_count>2</comment_count>
    <who name="Dave Peterson">davep</who>
    <bug_when>2008-12-12 19:14:34 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>(In reply to comment #0)
&gt; QT approved comment:

&gt; Looking at section 2 overall, it might seem worth making an early
&gt; mention of the fact that the literals used as input to the mapping function
&gt; for a datatype are not the literals as written in an instance document, but
&gt; the literals that result from applying whitespace normalization rules.

On 5 Dec 2008, the WG accepted a proposal, with some directed modifications that were not to be returened to the WG for further consideration, to satisfy this second part of the bug description.  The result has been incorporated into the master datatypes.xml file, but a new SQ HTML version has not been generated.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>23694</commentid>
    <comment_count>3</comment_count>
    <who name="Dave Peterson">davep</who>
    <bug_when>2009-02-12 23:23:00 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>Pproposal approved as amended is now in the status quo and most recent LCWD. 
Hereby marked FIXED.  Mike Kay, please mark it CLOSED unless you have a new
objection.  (I assume you were OK with it when it was approved by the WG since
you were present and didn&apos;t object.)  As usual, no action within two weeks will
be assumed to mean concurrence.</thetext>
  </long_desc>
      
      

    </bug>

</bugzilla>