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

Re: Five mechanical approaches to make an XSD profile without getting bogged by individual issues

From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 15:54:13 +1000
Message-ID: <4A1A3285.5060300@allette.com.au>
To: www-tag@w3.org
CC: Paul Downey <paul.downey@bt.com>
noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> ndate coming out of the workshop was in fact someone 
> different than the one you've been suggesting here, Rick.  So, not only 
> wasn't "the main issue ignored", I don't think it's as closely aligned 
> with your proposal as you're suggesting.
>   
Certainly that may be true. I wasn't there.

But lets look at what has happened in the mean time.

 1) Yes, databinding patterns identified
 2) No profile schema made
 3) No recommendation, just some Notes
 4) No links from XSD 1.1 to that information
 5) No impact on XSD 1.1
 6) Yes, XSD 1.1 gets bigger and even more monolithic, even for features 
where it was
easier to be modular.

So what are the results in XSD 1.1 of all those comments on 
size/complexity/etc and
the interop problems reported as caused by them from that workshop?

I submit, basically  *nothing* on a macro-level, just some tweaking of a 
couple of definitions.
I wonder whether too much focus on the difficulty of the XSD 1.0 text 
has fooled WG members
that this was basicly an editorial problem, rather than being caused by 
the technology itself?

Ignoring something by delegating it to a different group then ignoring 
their report is still ignoring.

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe
Received on Monday, 25 May 2009 05:55:08 GMT

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