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

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

From: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:32:48 +0200
Message-ID: <4A550270.9050302@w3.org>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
CC: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
Thanks for your wording.
It looks good to me.

The second proposed reply is about CSS I guess ?



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 20:48:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:23:41 UTC