6048 2008-09-09 02:13:35 +0000 Clarify which types the implementation limits apply to 2009-02-23 00:38:47 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Datatypes: XSD Part 2 1.1 only Macintosh Mac System 9.x CLOSED FIXED http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2008JulSep/0135.html editorial P2 normal --- 1 cmsmcq cmsmcq cmsmcq pfps www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 21837 0 cmsmcq 2008-09-09 02:13:35 +0000 In email to the XML Schema comments list on 5 September 2008 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2008JulSep/0135.html), Peter F. Patel-Schneider raised the following issue (among others): 2/ Partial implementation limits for infinite datatypes ... 2.2/ Difficult to discern relationship to datatypes The section of the draft related to partial implementation of infinite datatypes [1] does not mention dateTime. Only a careful examination of the entire LC draft shows that year and second in this section probably refer to the year and second that appear as parts of dateTime (and other datatypes). The WG suggests as an editorial change that the relationship between year and second and the actual datatypes be made more clear in this section of the LC draft. 21843 1 cmsmcq 2008-09-09 03:01:54 +0000 Thank you; good suggestion. I am marking this as editorial, since it is so obviously an opportunity to improve the clarity of the spec. 22035 2 pfps 2008-09-24 20:35:19 +0000 Fine. I don't think that there is any need for further interlock with the OWL WG on this. 23853 3 davep 2009-02-22 04:39:23 +0000 The fixes for this bug were adopted by the WG 19 Dec 08, and have been incorporated in the status quo (and the most recent LCWD); I'm marking it FIXED. Michael, when you get a chance please CLOSE it. (I assume you're OK with the fixes.) 23864 4 cmsmcq 2009-02-23 00:38:47 +0000 In view of Peter Patel-Schneider's having voiced agreement in comment #2 with the resolution adopted by the XML Schema WG, I'm closing this record on his behalf.