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

Re: LC-104 and LC-105 XML Signature WG's review of XML Schema

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 19:24:13 -0400
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001005191215.03676008@rpcp.mit.edu>
To: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>
Cc: W3C XML Schema Comments list <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>, "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
At 21:48 10/5/2000 -0600, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote:
>We thank you for the comments.  We have attempted to resist urges to
>improve the transfer syntax, and in many cases we have been
>successful.  I must inform you, however, that in some cases we have
>been forced, despite your encouragement to stabilize the syntax, to
>make incompatible changes to the language.  These changes have been
>necessary to gain functionality and to improve the degree to which the
>grammar given in the schema for schemas actually captures the rules
>governing the construction of schemas.

Ok, I appreciate the need to make some of the changes you did make (some of 
them are even things I asked for), and (un)fortunately because of other 
dependencies (i.e. C14N relative URIs) this won't affect this too much 
because we are not yet on the Standards track. I hope to move to the latest 
version prior to going to Candidate REC (as soon as we finish up these last 
minute editorial issues), though I can see it's going to be some work 
(successfully migrating, then updating the in-line examples in the spec). 
Regardless, now that you've made these changes, I'd _further_ encourage the 
WG not to twiddle with the syntax! <smile>

>Two members of our WG (Henry Thompson and Martin Gudgin) have
>made available a Web service for translating schema documents from
>the old syntax into the new syntax; it is at
>
>   http://www.w3.org/2000/09/webdata/xsupgrade

I tried to apply this to [1] and I get nothing back (not even an HTTP 
error). I grabbed the XSLT out of the CVS space and it merely processed the 
nodes (removing the internal subset and comments) without any change.

[1] http://policy.w3.org/latest/xmldsig-core-schema.xsd

>And we have formulated a policy which should reduce (we hope) the pain
>caused by incompatible syntax changes: in addition to the generic (and
>mutable) resources at URIs like http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace,

Ok, I'm glad to see this. I'm still a little confused by what conventions 
you use in H10 [2] to distinguish between:
1. a latest version: ? (should it have a date at all?)
2. a dated/stable version: http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema ?
3. it's instance: http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema-instance ?

[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#changes

>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.

The decision is acceptable though as stated I need a little more help in 
understanding its effects.

__
Joseph Reagle Jr.
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Thursday, 5 October 2000 19:24:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:12:48 GMT