W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcgm@w3.org > January 2010

Re: WebCGM 2.1 Relax NG schema asked Fwd: [Draft] Response to Last Call comment

From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:43:43 +0100
Message-ID: <546c6c1c1001231243o3cd3030vad93210a4c445723@mail.gmail.com>
To: dsdl-discuss@dsdl.org, Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: public-webcgm@w3.org
Dear,

Please find a very rough first contribution to a Relax NG compact schema
based on the DTD based on the data available here  [1]

Please note that the extension mechanism used here is very similar to the
one used in the DTD

Please also note that the data typed could be further detailled here

This is supposed to have very similar behaviour as the DTD in terms of
validation results

It could provide a start for providing more precise validation into next
edition

Best regards,

Mohamed ZERGAOUI

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/PR-webcgm21-20100114/WebCGM21-XCF.html

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>wrote:

> Dear,
>
> Here is a now official exchange on WebCGM (which is also an OASIS and
> ISO Standard)
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
> Date: Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:06 PM
> Subject: [Draft] Response to Last Call comment
> To: innovimax@gmail.com
> Cc: public-webcgm@w3.org
>
>
> 1 == 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.
>
> RESPONSE to your first comment:
> 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 -------------------------------
>
> In case we could add that to our todo list
>
> Regards,
>
> Mohamed
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Innovimax SARL
> Consulting, Training & XML Development
> 9, impasse des Orteaux
> 75020 Paris
> Tel : +33 9 52 475787
> Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
> http://www.innovimax.fr
> RCS Paris 488.018.631
> SARL au capital de 10.000 
>



-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 9 52 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 


Received on Saturday, 23 January 2010 20:44:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 23 January 2010 20:44:17 GMT