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 2744 - wd-18: Duplicate normative parts in Part 1 (3.14) and 2 (4.1)
Summary: wd-18: Duplicate normative parts in Part 1 (3.14) and 2 (4.1)
Status: REOPENED
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Datatypes: XSD Part 2 (show other bugs)
Version: 1.0 only
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: needsAgreement
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-01-20 21:19 UTC by Mary Holstege
Modified: 2009-05-01 18:58 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description Mary Holstege 2006-01-20 21:19:29 UTC
Both in 1.0 2E and 1.1 (both FPWD and our current internal drafts) there is an 
overlap of both subject matter and prose between these two sections. 
Furthermore, some of the duplicated prose is implicitly normative in both Parts.

We should do a careful survey of this, and make sure that the disposition 
between the two Parts is optimal.
Proposal concerning
Part 1
Simple Type Definition (Part 1)
Part 2
Simple Type Definition (Part 2)

Transition history
raised on 8 Nov 2004 by Henry S. Thompson (ht@inf.ed.ac.uk) (http://lists.w3.
org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2004OctDec/0021.html)
Comment 1 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2006-09-20 23:48:59 UTC
The 1.1 side of this issue was resolved at the ftf meeting in January
2006 (as a result of adopting the change proposal(s) for bug 1852).
So I'm changing the version field in this issue from 1.0/1.1 both
to 1.0 only.
Comment 2 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2006-09-21 00:00:30 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.
Comment 3 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2009-05-01 18:58:23 UTC
Since this is a 1.0-only bug, the mass change mentioned in comment 2 should
NOT have closed it.  I'm reopening it accordingly.