W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > May 1997

ERB disposition of "SD" issues

From: Jon Bosak <bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 11:59:30 -0700
Message-Id: <199705211859.LAA18350@boethius.eng.sun.com>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
The SGML ERB met today and decided to proceed on the "SD" questions
posted last week as described below.  Please note that time
constraints and the need to firm up the xml-link spec figured heavily
in making these decisions.  The ERB has concluded (rather sadly) that
it will have to start meeting twice a week again to get through the
issues that need to be addressed in order to have new xml-lang and
xml-link drafts out on July 1, so your cooperation in focusing email
discussions on the questions determined to be of the highest priority
will be greatly appreciated.

SD1 - Short End Tags

Finding: This is a religious issue that we can't resolve in the XML
1.0 time frame.  A great deal of discussion went into this question
early in the design of the language, and the case made for changing
this basic feature over the last week has not proven persuasive.

Action: Take any further discussion of this issue elsewhere (for
example, comp.text.sgml).

SD2 - Structured Attributes

Finding: The goal for this request needs to be stated more clearly.
Jean Paoli has agreed to formulate another statement of what needs to
be accomplished here.

Action: Suspend discussion of this question pending receipt of Jean's

SD3 - Data Types

Finding: We discussed this issue at length based on input received
from the WG.  We agree that there is a real need here and we are
hopeful that we can find a solution that will solve the majority of
the most important user requirements in this area.  Steve DeRose has
taken an action to formulate and post a straw proposal based on a
direction that seems promising.

Action: Suspend discussion of this question pending receipt of Steve's

SD4 - Schema Format

Finding: This question in a related form nearly destroyed the XML
effort back in September.  The political climate has changed somewhat
since then, but several of us feel strongly that an architectural
issue of this magnitude has to be undertaken in cooperation with WG8
and is way too big to tackle in the 1.0 time frame.  However, we are
also hearing that this could be a make-or-break feature for some other
W3C activities that are considering XML as their data format.

Action: We will check with the leaders of the related W3C activities
and with the W3C Coordination Group responsible for XML liaison within
the W3C to better understand the requirements before proceeding any
further with this.  Please suspend discussion of this question until
we have a clearer understanding of the situation.

SD5 - Namespaces

Finding: This one is very difficult, but we are agreed that it is the
most important xml-lang question facing us in the near term.  We have
not yet opened up discussion of the details in the ERB.

Action: Please focus on this question and on the current xml-link
issues as top priorities for the time being.

Received on Wednesday, 21 May 1997 15:00:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:26 UTC