This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
In section 4.3 there is a definition of "constraining facets" (plural) and a separate definition of "constraining facet" (singular). We shouldn't do this unless the plural is indeed meant to mean something different from more than one of the singular. In this case, the plural definition really tells what a constraining facet is, and the singular simply adds that all constraining facets are defined in the spec; no others may be added by users. Suggest we delete the second definition and either add the fact that all are defined in 4.3 to the plural definition or add it as an additional non-definition sentence.
Approved by the WG; awaiting incorporation into the status quo document. Specifically, the WG directed the editors to delete the last para in 4.3 proper (before 4.3.1), "The term [Definition:] Constraining Facet refers to any of the components defined in this section." and add in the first para before the sentence beginning "For example...": All constraining facet components are defined in this section.
(In reply to comment #1) > Approved by the WG; awaiting incorporation into the status quo document. While making the incorporation, I discovered that the identical problem exists for fundamental facets. (I was fixing it in one place, looking in the other place in the XHTML, and wondering why the fix didn't show.) On my own cognizance, I have made the corresponding change for fundamental facets as well.
The change proposed above was approved by the WG in its call of 17 November 2006. It is now reflected in the status quo version of the Datatypes spec. Accordingly, I am setting the disposition of this issue to RESOLVED / FIXED. If the originator of the issue would examine the change and let us know whether it satisfactorily resolves the problem or not, we'd be grateful. To signal that the resolution is acceptable, change the status of the issue to CLOSED. Otherwise, to signal that it's NOT acceptable, change the status to REOPENED (and tell us what's wrong). If we don't hear from you in the next three weeks, we'll assume that silence betokens consent, and close the issue ourselves.
Postscript: link-checking the documents (for the first time in several months) shows that the text deleted as described in comment #1 and comment #2 was providing the hypertext anchor for generic references to constraining and fundamental facet components. So the change made broke the links. Moral 1: the editors' analysis of the situation here was too quick and overlooked salient points. Moral 2: the status-quo documents need to be validated and link-checked more frequently, to catch problems like this more quickly.