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

TAG discussion schedule for concerns about XSD 1.1 (Re: Comment on XSD 1.1)

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 10:35:23 -0400
To: www-tag@w3.org
Cc: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "David Ezell" <David_E3@VERIFONE.com>, cmsmcq@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF47CC03E9.4D3AA5CD-ON852575BC.004F88D4-852575BC.004FE03A@lotus.com>
As promised, I have put XSD 1.1 on this week's TAG agenda [1], but since 
doing so I reminded myself that both Henry Thompson and Tim Berners-Lee 
have sent regrets for this week.  They are both among the people who have 
expressed a specific interest in this issue.  So, while we may have some 
brief discussion this week, I'm now thinking that it will be better not to 
try and establish a firm TAG direction on the XSD question until next week 
on the 28th when, AFAIK, everyone will be available.  Thank you.

Noah

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/21-agenda

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>
Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org
05/20/2009 09:53 AM
 
        To:     www-tag@w3.org
        cc:     www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org, (bcc: Noah 
Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        Re: Comment on XSD 1.1


Mukul Gandhi wrote:
> Hi Rick,
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Rick Jelliffe 
<rjelliffe@allette.com.au> wrote:
> 
>> Mukul, are you really sure you want to defend XSD 1.n as being
>> "straightforward"?  Gosh, things are worse than I thought  ;-)
>> 
>
> I find XSD 1.1 as having similar complexity to XSD 1.0.
That is a rather diplomatic response!

For the interest of the TAG group:
    http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028/ 
137.62 KB (140,924 bytes)
    http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-xmlschema11-1-20090430/ 
285.19 KB (292,037 bytes)

Why is XSD 1.1 Part 1 twice the number of characters compared to XSD 
1.0?  Both use UTF-8. (It presumably cannot be mostly the change list of 
Annex G.)  Richer markup?

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe
Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2009 14:34:02 GMT

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