W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2002

RE: Potential new issue: PSVI considered harmful

From: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:42:19 -0700
Message-ID: <8BD7226E07DDFF49AF5EF4030ACE0B7E06621CD9@red-msg-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>

I'm very interested in seeing coherent arguments against the usage of the PSVI in XQuery and XPath 2.0 (which isn't the same thing as using W3C XML Schema primitives in both languages even though that is also the case here). 
I recently was asked to summarize the arguments against the inclusions of the PSVI in XQuery and XPath 2.0 from the XML-DEV lists[0] and although there was a lot of rhetoric most of it boiled down to what seemed primarily to be personal dislike of W3C XML Schema and worries of implementation complexity. Now given that one of the major concerns was XPath 2.0 which allows implementers to use both a flexible type exception policy with fallback rules[1] as well as the consideration that static typing may be optional, it seems that some of the fears in the 150 - 200 posts about XPath 2.0, XQuery and the PSVI may have been allayed. 

[0] http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200205/threads.html The threads entitled (i) How to spell "No PSVI" in XSLT 2.0 ? (ii) Objections to / uses of PSVI? (iii) XSLT 2.0 and XSL(-FO) 2.0 (iv) XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 - Assumptions (v) PSVI formalization (vi) XPath 1.5 

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-xpath20-20020430/#static_context

[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-xpath20-20020430/#N40047D <http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath20/#N40047D> 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@simonstl.com] 
	Sent: Wed 6/12/2002 12:21 PM 
	To: www-tag@w3.org 
	Subject: Re: Potential new issue: PSVI considered harmful

	At 11:13 AM 6/12/2002 -0700, Tim Bray wrote:
	>4. Work on XQuery and other things that require a Type-Augmented Infoset
	>must not depend on schema processing, and should not have normative
	>linkages to any schema language specifications.
	I'd say this item is a crucial requirement if the W3C wants to avoid a
	serious fork in XML development.  Efforts to impose the PSVI as part of the
	XML core are not very welcome in a lot of places.
	I'm well aware that's a political issue, but the impact on what constitutes
	Web Architecture seems real enough.
	Simon St.Laurent
	"Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2002 15:42:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:32 UTC