W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > September 2004

RE: [XMLVersioning-41] Noah Mendelsohn Versioning Analysis for XML Schema WG (RESEND)

From: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 07:50:33 -0700
Message-ID: <830178CE7378FC40BC6F1DDADCFDD1D102766FF1@RED-MSG-31.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>

The inability to exclude namespaces in wildcards is a known issue in XML Schema and something I believe was originally on the table for version 1.1, see http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-xmlschema-11-req-20030121/#N4001C9 
 
I seem to remember working on a proposal with Cliff Schmidt that was submitted to the working group about 2 years ago.
 
-- 
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
If you don't change your direction, you may end up where you were headed. 

________________________________

From: www-tag-request@w3.org on behalf of David Orchard
Sent: Fri 9/3/2004 1:45 PM
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com; www-tag@w3.org
Subject: RE: [XMLVersioning-41] Noah Mendelsohn Versioning Analysis for XML Schema WG (RESEND)




Noah,

WRT your text

"Our current wildcards allow content from any namespace, other
namespaces, or a list of designated namespaces.  These may not
necessarily be the most useful options for our versioning scenarios.
One proposal is to introduce a wildcard that would validate any element
not explicitly declared elsewhere in the schema (regardless of
namespace, or perhaps intersected with the existing namespace controls.)
This supports an idiom in which:  if I know about an element and I don't
explicitly call for it, that means I don't want it.  I personally think
we would want to use something like this in the schema for schemas.".

I've written up some thoughts on this at
http://www.pacificspirit.com/blog/2004/09/03/extensibility_at_the_right_
level_a_namespace_isnt_it

I've done a fair bit of thinking on this, and I'm thinking more and more
that the problem of multi-ns vocabularies means that the distinction
between "known" and "unknown" elements is as important as namespaces for
differentiating wildcards, and may get around UPA problems as well.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of
> noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
> Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 1:26 PM
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Cc: Dare Obasanjo
> Subject: [XMLVersioning-41] Noah Mendelsohn Versioning Analysis for
XML
> Schema WG (RESEND)
>
> RESEND TO CIRCUMVENT BUG IN W3C ARCHIVING SOFTWARE
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> The original version of this note was sent to the tag
> mailing list on August 4th.  There were two
> attachments, and subscribers to the list tell me that
> they received both.  Unfortunately, some bug in the w3c
> archiving software resulted in the two being combined
> in the archive in a manner that was not a clean
> copy of either.
>
> Since the bug seems to relate to sending two
> attachments at once, I am here attaching only the HTML
> version of the file.  The text version has already been
> reposted at [1].
>
> Sorry for any confusion.
>
> The text of my original note follows.  I suggest that
> discussion be held on the thread originating with this
> second copy.  Thank you.
>
> Noah
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Aug/att-
> 0009/NRMVersioningProposal.txt.
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> TEXT OF ORIGINAL POSTING:
>
> In parallel with the Tag's analysis of versioning issues, the XML
Schema
> workgroup has been looking at the problem from an XML Schema
perspective.
> As part of that discussion, I prepared some notes that were posted
several
>
> weeks ago to the members-only schema-IG mailing list.  With the
permission
>
> of the workgroup, I am reposting them here where they can be viewed by
> non-W3C members.
>
> This analysis does NOT represent the considered position of the schema
WG,
>
> or for that matter of my employer (IBM).  On the contrary, other
> approaches have been suggested, and the workgroup has yet to take a
formal
>
> position on any of the proposals.  I offer these notes in the hope
that
> they will contribute to the Tags analysis of the issues and
opportunities.
>
>  I would call your attention particularly to the two introductory
sections
>
> titled "Assumptions and Rationale" and "Separation of Concerns", as I
> think these cover issues that should be considered for most any
approach
> to versioning and evolution.
>
> The documents were originally prepared as HTML using a relatively
popular
> word processor.  I was later told that there were font problems
rendering
> on Macs and some other non-Windows platforms.  Accordingly, I made a
> second copy in .txt format.  The two attachments to this note are
> identical in content except for formatting.
>
> I hope this is helpful to the Tag in it's deliberations on versioning.
>
> Noah
>
>
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
>
>
Received on Monday, 6 September 2004 14:51:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:28 GMT