[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> -----Original Message----- > From: Henry S. Thompson [mailto:ht@c...] > Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 9:46 AM > To: Dare Obasanjo > Cc: David Carlisle; jeni@j...; xml-dev@l... > Subject: Re: Schema Namespace name, schemaLocation, > and Schema V ersioning > 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 non-breaking change that was the gMonth errata[0] which invalidated 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. [0] http://www.w3.org/2001/05/xmlschema-rec-comments#pfiLexgMonth -- PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM Going the speed of light is bad for your age. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
|

Cart



