5625 2008-04-04 02:25:36 +0000 finite-length 2008-05-31 07:51:46 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Datatypes: XSD Part 2 1.0/1.1 both PC Windows XP CLOSED FIXED cluster: terminology resolved P1 minor --- 1 mike cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 19731 0 mike 2008-04-04 02:25:36 +0000 On the xml-schema-dev list today, Daniel Veillard [daniel@veillard.com] raises the point that "finite-length" sometimes seems to mean "zero or more", and sometimes "one or more" (as in "an optional sign followed by a finite-length sequence of digits". I've raised objections to "finite-length" before on the grounds that processors cannot reasonably be expected to distinguish finite from infinite sequences. But Daniel's objection seems less frivolous. I would respectfully suggest that we use the more conventional qualifiers "zero or more" and "one or more" as appropriate. 20072 1 cmsmcq 2008-05-09 20:03:36 +0000 The working group discussed this issue today and agreed that it's a substantive issue that needs to be clarified. We instructed the editors to prepare a draft making clear, wherever "finite-length" is used, whether it means "zero or more" or "one or more". 20322 2 cmsmcq 2008-05-30 03:57:30 +0000 A wording proposal intended to resolve this issue is at http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-2/datatypes.b5625.html (emmber-only link). The proposal inserts appropriate qualifiers ("empty", "non-empty", "zero or more", "one or more", etc.) in sentences otherwise imprecise on the lower bound of acceptable lengths. 20353 3 cmsmcq 2008-05-31 03:39:28 +0000 The proposal mentioned in comment #2 was adopted on today's WG call. With that, the WG believes the issue to have been resolved. Michael, you may or may not wish to convey this information to Daniel Veillard, or to take responsibility for closing the bug yourself; your call.