W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcgm-wg@w3.org > July 2009

Re: proposed reply -- [2nd LC Review] Comments -- Schema

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:44:48 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20090708144328.0161ebe0@localhost>
To: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Cc: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
Yes, 2nd is about CSS.  I need to reread the paper that Dave and I wrote 
about it.  Might not get to that until Friday.

-Lofton.

At 10:32 PM 7/8/2009 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote:
>Lofton,
>Thanks for your wording.
>It looks good to me.
>
>The second proposed reply is about CSS I guess ?
>
>Thanks
>
>Thierry
>
>
>Lofton Henderson wrote:
>>Hi WG --
>>Here is a proposed reply to 1st of his two comments.  Feel free to 
>>recommend improvements.  We'll discuss and approve/revise next 
>>Wednesday.  (I'm working on 2nd proposed reply)
>>-Lofton.
>>===== start =====
>>At 11:44 AM 6/20/2009 +0200, Innovimax SARL wrote:
>>
>>>== moving forward with XML Schema or Relax NG ==
>>>Sticking to DTD to define a XML dialect is neither sufficient neither
>>>a way to widespread the use of this XML dialect. For that, I ask the
>>>WG to consider providing normative XML Schema and/or Relax NG schema
>>>of the XCF model. It will help adoption especially because XCF uses
>>>Namespaces.
>>Thank you for your comments during the WebCGM 2nd Last Call Working Draft 
>>(LCWD) review.
>>The WebCGM Working Group (WG) agrees that WebCGM could potentially 
>>benefit by addition of a normative schema -- XML Schema or Relax NG.
>>Unfortunately, this proposal is beyond the scope of this 2nd LCWD review, 
>>and it is deemed to be too late in the WebCGM 2.1 development 
>>cycle.  Ideally, such a proposal would have been included in the WebCGM 
>>2.1 Requirements, or before 1st LCWD review at latest.  The 
>>implementation of such a proposal would involve major disruption of the 
>>WebCGM 2.1 text -- removal of the DTD and complete rewriting of Chapter 4 
>>(at least).  Since it does not address an error in the specification, or 
>>a serious defect, or violation of any W3C requirement, the WG believes 
>>that the proposal should be postponed until a future WebCGM development cycle.
>>As an interim step, the WG thinks that a non-normative Technical Note, 
>>separate from the progression of 2.1 WebCGM, might be an interesting 
>>approach.  The WG would also welcome an initial contribution, if you have 
>>interest in making such.
>>===== end =====
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2009 20:45:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 8 July 2009 20:45:38 GMT