W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > July to September 2000

Re: LC-215 - Easy Add-ins (i18n Comment on XML Schema Last Call Working Draft)

From: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:15:16 +0100
Message-ID: <001e01c029f5$c93bce00$0300a8c0@arbitrary>
To: "Martin J. Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>
Cc: "Schema Comments" <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
Hi Martin,

Comments inline...


----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin J. Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>; "Schema Comments"
<www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>; <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: LC-215 - Easy Add-ins (i18n Comment on XML Schema Last Call
Working Draft)

> Hello Martin :-),
> Many thanks for following up on this. Unfortunately, your mail does
> not give us enough information to decide whether we are satisfied
> with the Schema WG decision. We need more detailed information,
> and in particular some examples, to make such a decision.
> The part of our mail that is now registered as LC-215 contains
> various various examples and proposals, and if you could work
> out one of these, I guess that would be a good starting point.

To take the addition of xml:lang as an example;

1.    Given the original schema document[1] and associated instance[2], it
would be possible to produce a second schema document[3] that imports[1] and
adds the xml:lang attribute to the type 'personName'. This would make[4] a
valid instance document per schema document[3]

2.    If changing the namespace of the instance is not an option then the
second schema document[5] could use the redefine mechanism instead. The
instance document at[2] would be valid per the schema document[5].

> More comments below.
> At 00/09/21 12:25 -0400, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> >Dear I18N Working Group
> >
> >The W3C XML Schema Working Group has spent the last several months
> >working through the comments received from the public on the last-call
> >draft of the XML Schema specification.  We thank you for the comments
> >you made on our specification during our last-call comment period, and
> >want to make sure you know that all comments received during the
> >last-call comment period have been recorded in our last-call issues
> >list (http://www.w3.org/2000/05/12-xmlschema-lcissues).
> >
> >Among other issues, you raised the point registered as issue LC-215, Easy
> >add-ins.
> The relationship of this to LC-216 should also be noted. Any ideas
> about what the WG plans to do on that one?

We ( the XML Schema WG ) declined to adopt the proposal outlined in LC-216.
I'm not sure who is the official respondent on that one, sorry.

> >The Working Group discussed this issue and came to the following
> >conclusions;
> >
> >1    We agree that this is, in principle, a reasonable goal.
> Thanks.
> >We believe
> >that the existing refinement mechanism does make it possible to add
> >attributes or subelements as described.
> If you believe, that doesn't help us. If you know, and can show us
> how, that would be helpful.

Hopefully example 1 above addresses this point.

> >2    The new 'redefine' mechanism[1] may make such changes easier in some
> >most cases.
> Do you mean "6.2.2 Including modified component definitions"
> ify-schema
> It looks indeed like this might help, but we need more certainty than
> that. As an example, assume a traditional HTML-like document type.
> If this is well structured, it will somewhere have an 'inline'
> equivalence class (if that term is still used in the current draft).
> Can you show an example where:
> - An additional element is added to 'inline'?
> - An additional attribute is added to 'inline'?
> Also, can you help us figure out whether the result of these additions
> would be in the original namespace or a new one, or whether e.g.
> only the new element/attribute would be in the new namespace?

Use of redefine is restricted to same namespace only so any changes made to
declarations end up in the same namespace as they were in originally.

Example 2 above shows how to add an attribute, I hope to produce a
substitution group ( new name for equivalence class ) example soon.

> >3     A generic or fairly generic XSLT stylesheet could be written
> >to automate the generation of types containing extra attributes, elements
> >sets of the same.
> It looks like that's not what we want. I.e. to take the above case,
> if there is a concept of 'inline' in the schema, and the additions
> are conceptually meant to go to 'inline', this should not have to
> be done by adding things to the elements derived from inline,
> neither by hand nor somehow automatically.

My point here was *not* that you could generate a new *instance* document
using XSLT but that the new *schema* document could be generated using XSLT.
Hopefully it can be seen from the structure of[1] and [5] that the latter
could be generated from the former. I hope to produce an example XSLT for
this soon. Given that you will *have* to generate a new schema anyway
getting a machine to generate it for you seems like a plus to me.

> >The XML Schema Working Group would also like to invite the i18n WG to
> >participate in the inter-WG task force for a common library of complex
> >types. Alternatively, if the i18n WG would prefer to create a separate
> >library of i18n-related types, we are willing to collaborate with the
> >WG on that if they prefer.
> I think the idea of a common library of complex types is very good.
> We thought about that already several times, but didn't get around
> to do any actual work yet. Within the bounds of our resources, we
> would definitely be interested in participating.
> However, we do not think that this helps to satisfy our concerns
> as expressed in LC-215, because a common library will only be
> a long term solution, not a short term solution, and because
> it won't remove the need for additions totally.

Agreed, I don't think anyone thought this one was a short-term fix.

> >It would be helpful to us to know whether you are satisfied with the
> >decision taken by the WG on this issue, or wish your dissent from the
> >WG's decision to be recorded for consideration by the Director of
> >the W3C.
> We want to know better how things would actually work, so that we can
> understand whether we agree or disagree.
> I hope you can help us with that.

Hopefully this mail goes some way to doing that... I realise it doesn't
address all your points but I wanted to get something out quickly in reply
to you rather than leave you hanging. I'll try and address the other points
over the next few days.


Martin Gudgin
XML Schema Working Group

[1] http://marting.develop.com/xsd/lc-215/ex1.xsd
[2] http://marting.develop.com/xsd/lc-215/ex1.xml
[3] http://marting.develop.com/xsd/lc-215/ex2.xsd
[4] http://marting.develop.com/xsd/lc-215/ex2.xml
[5] http://marting.develop.com/xsd/lc-215/ex3.xsd
Received on Friday, 29 September 2000 06:13:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:53 UTC