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 1969 - Should Part 2 make the component tableaux normative?
Summary: Should Part 2 make the component tableaux normative?
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Datatypes: XSD Part 2 (show other bugs)
Version: 1.0/1.1 both
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: XML Schema WG
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL:
Whiteboard: important, work
Keywords: needsDrafting
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-09-03 16:56 UTC by Henry S. Thompson
Modified: 2006-09-21 00:00 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Henry S. Thompson 2005-09-03 16:56:49 UTC
Part 1 has a Schema Component Constraint for every component, the first clause 
of all of which effectively says "The value constraints in the component 
tableau above are normative".  We don't have anything like that for the Facet 
components of Part 2.  Should we add a single SCC somewhere which enforces this 
for all Facet component tableaux?

I've labelled this "1.0", since strictly speaking this is a bug/weakness in 1.0 
and could be handled as a Clarification with Erratum
Comment 1 Sandy Gao 2005-10-14 17:28:10 UTC
Discussed at 2005-09-09 telecon.

Resolution: to classify as clarification with corrigendum.
Comment 2 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2005-11-09 02:23:12 UTC
Version field changed to "1.0/1.1 both" since it applies to both 
versions of the spec.
Comment 3 Sandy Gao 2005-11-18 17:45:38 UTC
Discussed at 2005-11-18 telecon.

RESOLUTION: Phase 1 agreement that wrt bug 1969, editors should draft something 
in 4.1.5 which says properties must be as described in 4.1.1 and either there 
or at beginning of 4.3, ditto for all facet components
Comment 4 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2006-09-21 00:00:28 UTC
At the face to face meeting of January 2006 in St. Petersburg,
the Working Group decided not to take further action on this
issue in XML Schema 1.1.  (This issue was not discussed
separately; it was one of those which were dispatched by a
blanket decision that all other open issues would be closed
without action, unless raised again in last-call comments.)  Some
members of the Working Group expressed regret over not being able
to resolve all the issues dealt with in this way, but on the
whole the Working Group felt it better not to delay Datatypes 1.1
in order to resolve all of them.

This issue should have been marked as RESOLVED /WONTFIX at that
time, but apparently was not.  I am marking it that way now, to
reduce confusion.