[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
"Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com> writes:
> > As far as the Schema WG is concerned, we've tried _very_ hard
> > not to do that, and your representatives on the WG have not
> > identified any cases of this happening as far as I know --
> > please let the WG know ASAP which errata rendered previously
> > valid schemas or instances invalid!
>
> That's interesting given that I've mentioned on this very list about the
This is not the official official comments list -- I read it when I
can, but I don't always manage to read every post -- _please_ post
issues with the RECs or the errata to www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
as well as here.
> non-breaking change that was the gMonth errata[0] which invalidated
xxx
> previously valid schemata like the one below
>
> <xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema";>
>
> <xs:simpleType name="NotDecember">
> <xs:restriction base="xs:gMonth">
> <xs:maxInclusive value="--11--" />
> </xs:restriction>
> </xs:simpleType>
>
> </xs:schema>
>
> I'd be very surprised if our standards reps have not brought this up
> with the W3C XML Schema working group since they are well aware of this
> issue.
This is a corner case, hard to be sure about -- the REC was actually
contradictory as it stood, with one clause specifying one form, and
another clause a conflicting form. In that case, there are _no_
non-breaking fixes, at least in principle, and we went with what we
believed was the majority of existing usage in practice -- are you
aware of any _deployed_ schemas using the --MM-- form?
On balance I support the judgement call that this change should not
have resulted in a namespace change -- the REC was (by accident)
contradictory, we agreed what we meant, we've brought the REC into
line with that agreement.
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
W3C Fellow 1999--2002, part-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
|
