Re: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ann Navarro" <ann@webgeek.com>
To: "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>; "WWW-Tag" <www-tag@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc.


>
> At 07:55 PM 10/11/2002 -0700, Tim Bray wrote:
>
> >My arguments were rejected on a variety of grounds, in substantial part
> >non-technical.  One of the main reasons for XQuery's tight linkage to XML
> >Schema was "strong W3C guidance" that other W3C recommendations should be
> >used,
>
>
> Calling it "strong W3C guidance" is underplaying it a bit, IMO. The
> statement that I heard (from TBL directly) was "XML Schema is here, use
it."


Let's not get confused.   When it comes to documenteing W3C specs,
yes I say "XHTML is here, use it" and "XML-schema is here, use it"
fairly strongly because this is merely keeping our house in order.

Thta's quite different from saying that there should be a normative
dependecy
on xml schema from all our specs, which I don't say.

I think Tim Bray is arguing here against XQ engines actually needing to be
xml schema engines -- as opposed to the XQ spec being written using xml
schema.
Unless I have misunderstood.

> More of a decree than guidance, and a complicating factor in some people's
> opinion (e.g. is a language really following the 'use schemas' command if
> they must include a DTD subset to fully handle all aspects of their
> language? (see character entities) If a DTD subset is required, why must
> they use schemas at all when DTDs work arguably better?).
>
> It does make sense for W3C specs to use W3C XML Schema when devising a
> schema-based technology. However, I'd agree with Tim that having W3C XML
> Schema as the normative definition shouldn't prevent definitions in other
> schema languages.
>
> If this "guidance" is to be relaxed at all, a clear policy statement
should
> be made (more than a TAG opinion).
>
> Ann
> -----


Tim BL