5179 2007-10-10 23:35:16 +0000 Editorial: make it easier to find "list" and "union" from the toc 2009-07-15 21:27:50 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Datatypes: XSD Part 2 1.1 only PC Windows XP CLOSED FIXED cluster: presentation resolved P2 normal --- 1 noah_mendelsohn cmsmcq cmsmcq David_E3 www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 17136 0 noah_mendelsohn 2007-10-10 23:35:16 +0000 We've done a good job of making it easy in Schema 1.1 Part 2 to jump from the table of contents to descriptions of particular types like Integer. Abstractions like "List" and "Union" seem equally important, but you have to more or less guess that they'd be in the section "2.4 Datatype Distinctions". I can imagine serveral potential resolutions to this concern, any of which would be agreeable to me: a) Add at least section 2.4.1 to the TOC. The obvious thing to do would be to also add 2.4.2 Special vs. Primitive vs. Ordinary Datatypes; 2.4.3 Definition, Derivation, Restriction, and Construction; 2.4.4 Built-in vs. User-Defined Datatypes b) Rearrange the sections in 2.4 so that "list" and "union" (and perhaps Atomic as well) are level 3 rather than level 4 headings, and then include them individually. They seem like quite important abstractions in the type system, and they're buried quite deeply in the TOC hierarchy. Other solutions might be agreeable to me too, but I strongly feel we should do something better than what we currently have. Noah 17196 1 David_E3 2007-10-14 19:25:56 +0000 *** Bug 4459 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** 25089 2 cmsmcq 2009-05-09 14:24:14 +0000 A proposal illustrating a solution to this issue is at http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-2/datatypes.b5179.html http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.b5179.html and is ready for WG action. 25371 3 David_E3 2009-05-29 16:36:38 +0000 RESOLUTION: adopt proposal for 5179 at http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-2/datatypes.b5179.html 25988 4 cmsmcq 2009-07-15 21:15:20 +0000 The change described in comment 2 has now been integrated into the status-quo documents. I am accordingly marking this issue resolved. Noah, 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.