Well, it's not actually a note, Rick, it's a submission to the W3C. But
yes, the errors should be corrected, presumably by a re-submission. There
are more, mostly less serious, errors and typos that should be corrected as
well.
>
> Also note that the usage of ISO 8601 date formats seems to be wrong.
> ISO 8601 date format is yyyy-mm-dd, e.g. 1998-05-09, and not 19980509,
> last time I looked.
Both 1998-05-09 and 19980509 are legal in ISO 8601 (there's a "full" and a
"basic" format, or something like that). However, my current inclination is
always to use the full form, i.e. 1998-05-09, as per Misha Wolf's and
Charles Wickstead's note: http://www.w3c.org/TR/NOTE-datetime-970915.html.
>
> If anyone is thinking of implementing XML-data, I suggest
> they befriend the
> authors, because the report misses out on several key issues. (I have
> previously
> mentioned that is does not seem to make clear whether you can have an
> XML-data schema as part of a document, or whether it must be
> external. If it
> is internal, can it describe the document's root element? I
> suppose a close
> reading of the XML-data text might help, but it is not clear
> to me after
> dozens of readings, but I do not claim to be particularly
> brilliant in this
> area.)
Befriending the authors is always a good idea :-), as is allowing schema
information in a document instance. I think the next revision should try to
define this.