This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
QT approved comment. In 2.4, the term "character string" in the first definition seems to have the same meaning as the term "A sequence of zero or more characters in the Universal Character Set (UCS)" in the fourth definition. Why are different terms used? (I suggest defining the term "character string" (or "string") once and then using it, hyperlinked to the definition.)
(In reply to comment #0) > In 2.4, the term "character string" in the first definition seems to have > the same meaning as the term "A sequence of zero or more characters in the > Universal Character Set (UCS)" in the fourth definition. Why are different > terms used? The reasons are buried in antiquity and no longer apply. We should unify the terminology. >(I suggest defining the term "character string" (or "string") once and then >using it, hyperlinked to the definition.) A reasonable suggestion on its face. It will be considered by the editors, I'm sure.
bug 3250 raises the same question about "decimal number"; the two problems are sufficiently related that that part of 3250 is hereby incorporated in this bug; subsequent discussion will be under this bug number.
The XML Schema Working Group discussed this issue in its telcon of 7 September 2007 and instructed the editors to prepare a wording proposal with the following properties: - The spec should use the words 'string', 'integer', etc. in their usual technical meaning. (Optionally, existing circumlocutions like 'character string' may be changed to use the simpler form 'string'.) - When the spec needs to refer to a string, integer, etc. qua member of the value space of a particular XSDL datatype (i.e. when we are speaking of a value identified, in the course of validation, as the value corresponding to the lexical form specified by a given information item), some explicit phrasing should be used, not the simple words 'string', 'integer', etc. - The spec should at some appropriate point make clear (a) that the terms 'string', 'integer', etc. are used in their normal technical sense, (b) that other phrasing (to be specified) is used when speaking of values qua members of the value space of a specific XSDL datatype, and (c) that of course all strings (as we use the term) are in fact members of the lexical and value spaces of xs:string (and similarly, mutatis mutandis, for integer), so that this is purely a question of connotation, not denotation. - The terms 'string', 'integer', etc. should be given formal definitions for each usage, and each occurrence of the terms should be hyperlinked to the appropriate definition, so that in case of doubt a reader can check what we think we mean. I'm marking this as needsDrafting.
In August and September 2009 the XML Schema working group performed triage on the remaining open issues in a WBS poll [1], whose results are summarized at [2] and accepted formally at [3]. In the course of that triage we decided, with some regret, to close this issue without further action. We just aren't going to get this done in the time available to us, and we do not believe the issue is critical enough to warrant delaying the spec to address it. Michael, if as the originator of the comment you will convey this decision to the QT working groups, and signal their response back in turn, it would be helpful. In the usual way, if the QT WGs are willing to accept this resolution of the issue, please close the bug; if they wish to push back, please re-open it. If we don't hear from you on this issue in the next two weeks we will assume that QT is reluctantly willing to acquiesce in this disposition. [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/19482/200908CRissues/ [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-wg/2009Sep/0005.html [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2009Sep/att-0005/2009-09-11telcon.html#item04 (all links member-only)