W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > May 2009

Re: Comment on XSD 1.1

From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 04:49:43 +1000
Message-ID: <4A0B1647.20803@allette.com.au>
To: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
CC: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org
Michael Kay wrote:
> Please don't try to deny XSD users their pain relief on the basis that we
> should be working on a cure for cancer. Both are needed.
>   
Realistically, is there any hope of getting the XSD WG to look at this 
without intervention? There has been no sign that they are capable or 
interested in picking up the ball.
> Yes, it would be nice to start a new project to do something better. There
> is no guarantee such a project will succeed, but that's not a good reason
> for not trying. The current working group is probably not the best place to
> do it; indeed, the W3C might not be the best place to do it; organizations
> as well as individuals tend to cling to the positions they have adopted in
> the past.  
The heavy lifting has already been done externally at OASIS and ISO with 
RELAX NG. The only place that can
simplify XSD is W3C.  Are you saying that you believe that the current 
working group is uninterested or
incapable of simplification?  Or that XSD is?
>> But none of this has anything to do, in my view, with the decision of
>> whether to advance XSD 1.1 to Recommendation status, for which the criteria
>> are (a) will this specification be implemented, and (b) if it is
>> implemented, will users benefit from its adoption. The WG had a remit, that
>> remit is still legitimate, and it has delivered on that remit.
>>     
> Delivering on the micro-remit while failing on the macro-remit is 
> still failing. It is sticking up No Smoking
> signs on the Hindenberg.
>
> Cheers
> Rick Jelliffe
Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2009 18:50:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:13 GMT