[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: XML Schema WG changing gears (was Re: Schema concepts)

• From: "Michael Champion" <Mike.Champion@s...>
• To: "XML-Dev Mailing list" <xml-dev@x...>
• Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 13:37:40 -0500

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Lowery" <jlowery@s...>
To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@c...>; "XML-Dev Mailing list"
<xml-dev@x...>
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2000 9:43 PM
Subject: RE: XML Schema WG changing gears (was Re: Schema concepts)


> > We are into the end-game for XML Schema (version 1), and the Working
> > Group has internally accepted the discipline of bringing up no new
> > issues unless they are necessary fix an aspect of the design which is
> > broken.
>
> But what's done it done.

It would appear that Henry Thomson is saying that they definitely won't be
adding anything new to the spec.  Assuming that the various features of XML
Schema are not too complexly intertwined, it should still be possible to
remove things from the spec if they are not too densely interconnected with
everything else.

[Putting on my W3C hat] What a working group *says* is a spec is not
necessarily what the W3C says is a Recommendation.  There's a round of
comments by other working groups and implementers, a vote by the membership,
and finally the Recommendation of the director. To the exent that large
numbers of people who believe strongly in this or other issues can lobby W3C
members, the W3C
process can allow public input to significantly constrain a working group.
Agitation on XML-DEV last fall clearly led to a simplification of the
namepaces in the XHTML spec, it could happen again.  Wait until the next
draft (which I have
heard has taken pains in the direction of clarity and simplicity); if it is
too complex, then make clear, specific recommendations as to how to simplify
it to this list, the Schema public comment list, your company's W3C
participants (if applicable), your partners/suppliers who are W3C
participants, etc.

> Hmmm... I wonder if the SML-dev group is working on
> a schema?

[Putting on my SML-DEV hat] Not yet ;~)  Assuming that the W3C schema
Recommendation ends up being far more complicated than many consider
necessary and does not define its own "legal" subset for simple
applications, I would expect that SML-DEV will
be discussing where the "80:20" line in the Schema spec should be drawn and
then how to best legitimize that subset.



***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/threads.html
***************************************************************************

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML Schema WG changing gears (was Re: Schema concepts)
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@q...>
  • Re: XML Schema WG changing gears (was Re: Schema concepts)
    • From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)

• References:
  • RE: XML Schema WG changing gears (was Re: Schema concepts)
    • From: "Jeff Lowery" <jlowery@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Schema concepts
• Next by Date: Re: encoding converters?
• Previous by thread: RE: XML Schema WG changing gears (was Re: Schema concepts)
• Next by thread: Re: XML Schema WG changing gears (was Re: Schema concepts)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread