5526 2008-03-04 16:52:43 +0000 What does "nested to any depth" mean? 2008-06-25 09:32:53 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified SML Core LC PC Windows NT RESOLVED FIXED externalComments, reviewerSatisfied P2 normal --- 1 pratul.dublish virginia.smith ht johnarwe public-sml oldest_to_newest 19274 0 pratul.dublish 2008-03-04 16:52:43 +0000 Minor comment from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2008Mar/0001.html 4.5.1.2: The phrase "nested to any depth" doesn't make any sense to me??? 19322 1 pratul.dublish 2008-03-06 17:15:42 +0000 This comment is about the following sentence in 5.2.1.2 "The sml:selector XPath allows smlfn:deref() functions, nested to any depth, at the beginning of the expression." Suggest rewording. 19335 2 kumarp 2008-03-06 20:55:04 +0000 resolution (3/6 conf call): proposal: change the relevant text, from: nested to any depth to: with function calls nested to any depth The SML WG believes that the above proposal resolves this issue fully. I'm changing its status accordingly. The change in status should cause email to be sent to the originator of this issue, to whom the following request is addressed. Please review the changes adopted and let us know if you agree with this resolution of your issue, by adding a comment to the issue record and changing the Status of the issue to Closed. Or, if you do not agree with this resolution, please add a comment explaining why. If you wish to appeal the WG's decision to the Director, then also change the Status of the record to Reopened. If you wish to record your dissent, but do not wish to appeal the decision to the Director, then change the Status of the record to Closed. If we do not hear from you in the next two weeks, we will assume you agree with the WG decision. 19773 3 virginia.smith 2008-04-10 18:27:55 +0000 The section in LC draft is 5.2.1.2. Resolution 4/10 - change both occurrences with new text per comment #2. 20119 4 kumarp 2008-05-15 19:51:04 +0000 Henry, can you please let us know if the resolution in comment# 2 is acceptable to you? 20829 5 ht 2008-06-25 09:31:35 +0000 I am happy that the revised wording addresses my initial concern