W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2010

Re: including a schema with "HTML: The Markup Language" Clarifying TAG Re: Courtesy notification

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 09:38:21 -0500
To: "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Paul Cotton <paul.cotton@microsoft.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Message-ID: <1268750301.4118.94.camel@pav.lan>
On Mon, 2010-03-15 at 19:49 +0900, Michael(tm) Smith wrote:
> "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, 2010-03-03 08:02 +0000:
> > Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, 2010-01-03 22:42 -0800:
> > 
> > >  Mike also mentions that he's not sure if including a full schema is the 
> > >  right thing to do, since none of the available schema languages is 
> > >  expressive enough to represent all of the HTML5 document conformance 
> > >  requirements. I know other members of the Working Group share this concern. 
> > >  Mike and I decided that the best way to handle this is to use the usual 
> > >  bug/issue process. Thus I have filed 
> > >  <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8611>.
> > > 
> > >  TAG members are encouraged to Cc themselves on the bug and/or add comments 
> > >  if they have an interest in this issue. After suitable discussion in the 
> > >  HTML WG, Mike will enter an Editor's Response in the bug, and if necessary 
> > >  we will escalate it to an issue. Though hopefully we can settle it with 
> > >  minimum fuss.
> I moved the status of bug 8611 to resolved=wontfix. Per the
> process guidelines in the HTML WG decision-policy document[1],
> that means anybody is free to reopen if they disagree with that
> resolution, and to add a comment explaining why.
>   [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html#basic
> Here is the Rationale section of the comment I added for the
> status change:
>   In its current form, the H:TML document would not seem to me to
>   be the optimal place to publish a schema. I think the group
>   needs to first consider the larger question of whether it should
>   publish a schema or set of schemas at all, and if so, what
>   exactly to publish -- and then consider how/where to publish it.
> I think discussion of what kind of schema or set of schemas (e.g.,
> RelaxNG plus Schematron plus whatever else) to publish, and how to
> publish it, should be raised either as a new bug or as an HTML WG
> Tracker issue.

That seems kinda odd, Mike; the way the document is built uses
a schema for its backbone. The schema is there in the source:

So you're already publishing the information that's in
the schema; is there some reason not to just include the
source of the schema in an informative
appendix (with whatever disclaimers you like), so that
other people can make similar uses of it?

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 16 March 2010 14:38:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:05 UTC