This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
At the meeting in St. Petersburg on 30 January, Sandy Gao proposed that "We should fix the use of 'atomic ...' in Part 1 to be consistent with part 2, i.e. say 'with {variety} atomic'". The specific reference was to clause 1.1 of Schema Component Constraint: Derivation Valid (Restriction, Simple) in section 3.14.2 of Structures, which currently reads in part: With one exception, the {base type definition} is an atomic simple type definition ... SG's proposal was to say something like With one exception, the {base type definition} has {variety} atomic ... The analogous sentence in Datatypes (in section 4.1.1) reads: If {variety} is ·atomic· then the {variety} of {base type definition} must be ·atomic·, unless the {base type definition} is anySimpleType. The WG agreed to open an issue on this topic as part of its decision to accept the wording proposal for bug 1852 aligning parts 1 and 2.
A wording proposal for this issue (among others) was sent to the XML Schema WG on 4 February 2008. http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.consent.200802.html (member-only link) For some issues, the proposal is effectively to make no change; see the Status section of the proposal for the specifics.
During its telcon today, the XML Schema WG accepted the 'Structures Omnibus 2' proposal, which includes changes intended to resolve this issue. (Or, for some issues, contains the editors' proposal that the issue should be closed without further changes.) http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.consent.200801.html (member-only link) Accordingly, I'm marking the issue resolved. The originator of this issue (or in some cases the individual, acting on behalf of a group, who filed the comment) should receive an email notification of this change. Please examine the changes and let us know if you agree with this resolution of your issue, by adding a comment to the issue record and changing the Status of the issue to Closed. Or, if you do not agree with this resolution, please add a comment explaining why. If you wish to appeal the WG's decision to the Director, then also change the Status of the record to Reopened. If you wish to record your dissent, but do not wish to appeal the decision to the Director, then change the Status of the record to Closed. If we do not hear from you in the next two weeks, we will assume you agree with the WG decision.