This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 16784 - Text says explicitTimezone/@value is an NCName
Summary: Text says explicitTimezone/@value is an NCName
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Datatypes: XSD Part 2 (show other bugs)
Version: 1.1 only
Hardware: PC Windows NT
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: David Ezell
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: resolved
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2012-04-18 17:31 UTC by Priscilla Walmsley
Modified: 2015-05-23 19:00 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:

Attachments
diffed spec showing proposed change (among others) (79.42 KB, text/html)
2012-10-21 00:32 UTC, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 		Details

Description Priscilla Walmsley 2012-04-18 17:31:53 UTC 
The XML Representation Summary for explicitTimezone in 4.3.13.2 shows the type of the value attribute as an NCName.  In fact it is a NMTOKEN-based enumerated list (optional | required | prohibited ) as described later in the text and in the Schema for Schemas. 

Ideally the XML Representation Summary should be updated to list the possible values, as it does for other enumerated lists.
Comment 1 David Ezell 2012-04-20 15:38:01 UTC 
WG notes this probably should be section 4.3.14.2.
Agreed, this is a bug in the syntax summary.
Comment 2 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2012-10-21 00:32:26 UTC 
Created attachment 1232 [details]
diffed spec showing proposed change (among others)

A diffed version of the spec showing a draft erratum for this issue is now on the server at

  https://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-2/datatypes.errata-2012.html
  (member-accessible link)

A copy of the relevant portions of the spec is attached for the use of those who don't have member access.

Accordingly, I'm marking this bug as 'needs review'.

Priscilla, if you could, please review the resolution of the issue and
let us know whether you have any objections to it.  If we don't hear
from you in the next two weeks or so, we'll assume you are happy with
the changes.
Comment 3 Priscilla Walmsley 2012-10-21 15:06:30 UTC 
Looks good to me.  Thanks!
Comment 4 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2012-11-23 17:45:49 UTC 
Since PW has already agreed with the change made, I'm closing this now.
Comment 5 Priscilla Walmsley 2015-05-23 19:00:39 UTC 
Changing status from CLOSED back to RESOLVED because otherwise this bug does not appear in the search linked to from the Errata page at http://www.w3.org/XML/XMLSchema/v1.1/1e/errata.html