Simpled fields: sanity check

[Alex Brown]

Dear all,

It has been pointed-out to me that my esteemed colleague, Mr Inigo Surguy, already noted the invalidity (see DR 09-0105 of February 2009). And of course it was a BRM resolution that all examples should be corrected for validity.

Isn't this rather important? Is the schema out-of-sync with the "existing corpus of office documents"? Is the functionality encapsulated by <w:ffData> not available to conformant implementation (because not allowed by the schema)?

- Alex.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Brown [mailto:alexb at griffinbrown.co.uk]
> Sent: 15 April 2010 14:44
> To: SC 34 WG4
> Subject: Simpled fields: sanity check
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> Looking at the <w:fldSimple> element in WML, it seems many examples, and
> a lot of dependent functionality, require the <w:ffData> as a child.
> 
> See e.g. 17.16.14.
> 
> Yet, by my reading of the schema <w:ffData>is *not allowed* as a child of
> <w:fldSimple>.
> 
> Am I missing something obvious here?
> 
> - Alex.
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________
> ____________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> __________________________________________________________
> ____________
> 
> __________________________________________________________
> ____________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> __________________________________________________________
> ____________

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________