W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-forms@w3.org > September 2007

Re: [XForms 1.1] i18n comment: IRIs for external schema locations possible? (PR#8)

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 13:45:21 +0900
Message-ID: <46F740E1.8050100@w3.org>
To: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
CC: public-i18n-core@w3.org, www-forms-editor@w3.org, "Forms WG (new)" <public-forms@w3.org>

Hi John,

John Boyer wrote:
>
> Hi Felix,
>
> I would like to take this opportunity to provide a little context  for 
> the response than that which appeared in the prior response.  I would 
> then like to see whether that context helps to make the response more 
> satisfactory for now.
>
> First, the spec that we normatively reference, XML Schema 1.0 Second 
> Edition, defines xs:anyURI datatype in terms of RFC 2396, RFC 2732, 
> and the algorithm in Section 5.4 of XLink [1].  It does not refer to 
> RFC 3987 at all, as this document came out after XML Schema 1.0 Second 
> Edition.   

that's exactly the point:  XML Schema 1.0 does not refer to RFC 3987, 
since RFC 3987 was too late. Nevertheless, the xs:anyURI data type was 
designed to be compatible with the upcoming IRI specification.

>
>
> The working group decided to defer to a future version upgrading the 
> XML Schema engines required by XForms processors and design tools.
in my opinion, no upgrade of the XML Schema engines is necessary. The 
reason that XML Schema 1.0 does not cite the IRI spec, is due to timing 
(which you described above), not due to technical issues.

>
> And the more important fact, which responds to your response, is that 
> the working group decided that upgrading to XPath 2.0 is a future 
> feature scheduled for XForms 2.0, so the citation you gave of XPath 
> 2.0 amounts to another pointer to a feature that is not within the 
> scope of XForms 1.1. 

I hope that my explanation above makes clear that a reference to IRI 
will not require an implementation change for XML Schema engines 
required by XForms processors.

>  In other words, all of this functionality is amounting to requests 
> for features that are not in the XForms 1.1 requirements 
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms-11-req/).

Me / the i18n core Working Group don't have a new feature request, but a 
request for clarification in existing features. My reference to XPath 
2.0 also was a reference to a clarifying note in that specification, and 
not a request to implement features unique to it.

>
> So, our response was not rejecting the request, but rather committing 
> to adding this issue into the requirements stream of the appropriate 
> version of XForms containing numerous requirements related to this 
> request,
>
> Could you let us know if this information makes it possible to accept 
> the resolution (understood grudgingly) with the understanding that it 
> is on the agenda for our future.

I'm sorry, but personally I'm not yet convinced. Other participants from 
the i18n core WG might provide input on this thread, and we will come 
back with a Working Group reply after our next call this week (Tuesday).

Felix
Received on Monday, 24 September 2007 04:45:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 October 2013 22:06:45 UTC