6734 2009-03-24 20:57:18 +0000 NMTOKENS IDREFS and ENTITIES should all have a "whiteSpace" facet 2009-04-21 19:21:47 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Datatypes: XSD Part 2 1.1 only PC Windows XP CLOSED FIXED resolved P2 normal --- 1 sandygao David_E3 cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 24397 0 sandygao 2009-03-24 20:57:18 +0000 Section 3.4 in the Datatypes spec lists all facets that are already present on the derived types. For the 3 built-in list types, whiteSpace = collapse should be listed. whiteSpace should also be removed from the "may also specify" list for these types. 24399 1 davep 2009-03-24 21:14:51 +0000 (In reply to comment #0) > whiteSpace should also be removed from the "may also specify" list > for these types. (Most easily done by making whiteSpace fixed when set to collapse. This was done relatively recently for some datatypes.) 24627 2 cmsmcq 2009-04-09 01:14:23 +0000 It's not clear to me why whitespace should be removed from the 'may also specify' list. Is it illegal to specify whitespace=collapse when restricting a list datatype? 24628 3 davep 2009-04-09 01:28:02 +0000 (In reply to comment #2) > It's not clear to me why whitespace should be removed from the 'may also > specify' list. Is it illegal to specify whitespace=collapse when restricting a > list datatype? Of course not. Just should be specified fixed="true" (as we did a few months ago for most of the primitives). That way it gets the lead-in "these facets must not be changed from the values shown" rather than "these facets may be further restricted in the derivation of new types" (which really suggests that it can be *changed*, not just *specified*). And it *should* be listed as having a value, not just available to be given a value in a subsequent derivation (which is what the "may also specify values for" list is about). 24678 4 David_E3 2009-04-13 14:12:36 +0000 The WG decided on wording to address this issue: http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-2/datatypes.b6734.html 24893 5 cmsmcq 2009-04-21 18:12:50 +0000 The change mentioned in comment 4 now having been integrated into the status-quo documents, I'm marking this issue RESOLVED / FIXED. Sandy, as the originator, will you please verify that the problem has been fixed to your satisfaction and CLOSE the issue (or REOPEN it if not)? Thanks. On Friday, silence will be taken as consent.