<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hi Markus,</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 7:18 AM Markus Demleitner <<a href="mailto:msdemlei@ari.uni-heidelberg.de">msdemlei@ari.uni-heidelberg.de</a>> wrote:</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Here's what I've done and how I propose to go on:<br>
<br>
(a) I changed the version attribute on the root of the schema file to<br>
"1.1+Erratum-1"</blockquote><div>... </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Here's my reasoning:<br>
<br>
(a) is because people should be able to work out the "patchlevel" of<br>
the schema. When Erratum-3 is being applied, the version would<br>
be 1.1+Erratum-1+Erratum-3. Yes, that could potentially get long,<br>
but since not many people will have too look at it, that's probably<br>
acceptable.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Hmm, would we ever have a XSD posted that did not take into account accepted errata? If we did then I'd probably consider it a mistake made by the working group.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Brian</div></div></div></div></div>