Simpled fields: sanity check

[Alex Brown]

Shawn hi

Yes  - sorry. I missed that this had been dealt with in Stockholm. I don't think there is a remaining defect.

(I suppose a follow-up question is: why do we need fldSimple? -- but that's for another day).

- Alex.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shawn Villaron [mailto:shawnv at microsoft.com]
> Sent: 21 April 2010 04:58
> To: Alex Brown; SC 34 WG4
> Subject: RE: Simpled fields: sanity check
> 
> Wasn't this resolved with the 105 DR?  Or is there still a defect?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Brown [mailto:alexb at griffinbrown.co.uk]
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 6:31 AM
> To: SC 34 WG4
> Subject: RE: Simpled fields: sanity check
> 
> 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
> __________________________________________________________
> ____________
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________
> ____________
> 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 
______________________________________________________________________