W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > January 2010

xml-model discussion [was: Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2010 January 27]

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:13:45 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D302122555AC@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jirka Kosek [mailto:jirka@kosek.cz]
> Sent: Thursday, 2010 January 28 11:10
> To: veillard@redhat.com
> Cc: John Cowan; Grosso, Paul; public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2010 January 27
> 
> Daniel Veillard wrote:
> 
> > But honnestly I think the concept is a bit flawed, to me a schemas
is
> > a contract between a sender and a receiver of documents, and if you
> > want to check something you received fetching the contract after
> > receiving the document doesn't prove much.
> 
> I would like to prevent diving into this permathread.
> 
> xml-model is not saying that it is good idea to store schema location
> inside XML instance. In many situations it is much better, robust,
> scalable, secure, futureproof, ... to store schema association
> separately from XML instance.
> 
> That being said there are still use cases where users prefer storing
> schema information inside XML instances and there is no standardized
> way
> for doing it now. xml-model tries to fill this gap.
> 
> My initial draft of xml-model contained the following paragraph in the
> introductory part:
> 
> "It should be noted that this part of ISO/IEC 19757 is not meant as a
> replacement for other technologies that provide more general and
> indirect schema association features like NVDL and XProc. This part of
> ISO/IEC 19757 is complementary technology which can be used when it is
> necessary to store ad-hoc schema associations directly inside XML
> document."
> 
> We might reintroduce something like this into the next draft of
> xml-model in order to make it crystal clear what's the purpose of xml-
> model.

I like the idea of putting those words back in.
(I didn't omit them on purpose--I guess I just started from
a different place and didn't think to put that para in.)

But I'm also willing to continue the discussion of the
possibility of adding another pseudo-attribute if that
is deemed useful.  I don't have a strong opinion on that
myself at this time.

paul
Received on Thursday, 28 January 2010 17:14:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 28 January 2010 17:14:15 GMT