4276 2007-01-25 15:07:18 +0000 Namespace Constraint Property Record problems 2008-03-18 00:45:27 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Structures: XSD Part 1 1.1 only All All CLOSED FIXED editorial cluster resolved P4 minor --- 1 davep cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 13804 0 davep 2007-01-25 15:07:18 +0000 In 3.10.1, Property Record: Namespace Constraint, there are two "{disallowed names}" properties prescribed. Also, in the {namespaces} definition, changing "·absent·" to "the keyword absent" would make it clearer that said keyword is intended as a candidate member of the set, rather than a possible value of the property (which of course it cannot be, since the property value is required. 13824 1 sandygao 2007-01-29 19:09:06 +0000 About the first problem. There is an error in the configuration file that generates the spec. I've fixed it and the first {disallowed names} will (hopefully) go away in the next working draft. 18725 2 cmsmcq 2008-02-04 16:17:25 +0000 In an effort to make better use of Bugzilla, we are going to use the 'severity' field to classify issues by perceived difficulty. This bug is getting severity=minor to reflect the existing whiteboard note 'easy'. 19372 3 cmsmcq 2008-03-08 01:00:07 +0000 A wording proposal intended to resolve this issue was sent to the XML Schema WG on 7 March 2008. http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.omni-200803b.html (member-only link). Those interested in this issue may review the proposal and are invited to comment on it. 19509 4 sandygao 2008-03-17 20:36:33 +0000 At its telcon on 2008-03-14, the XML Schema WG adopted the wording proposal at http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.omni-200803b.html (member-only link), and believes this issue now to be resolved. Since the originator of this issue is a WG member, he is presumed to assent to this resolution of the issue. For formal purposes, however, it would be convenient if he so indicated in the usual way. 19522 5 davep 2008-03-18 00:45:27 +0000 I guess this fix resolves this particular paroblem, so I'll mark it CLOSED. Note, however, that the handling of absent is still not harmonized between Part 1 and Part 2. I hope it will be, in favor of the current just-approved Part 2 version.