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

LC-191, 211, 212, 213, 214 (XForms comments on XML Schema)

From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@acm.org>
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 03:16:29 -0600
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001008031423.00b83880@espanola.com>
To: Micah Dubinko <MDubinko@cardiff.com>
Cc: W3C XML Schema Comments list <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>, w3c-forms@w3.org
Dear Micah Dubinko:

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).

Your comments on the draft, on behalf of the XForms WG, raises
a number of points, registered in our list as

  LC-191 Comments from XForms Group
  LC-211 Add masks?
  LC-212 Currencies
  LC-213 Drop facets?
  LC-214 Add facets?

I believe that through the overlap in the membership between the XML
Schema WG and the XForms WG, you are already passably well informed
about the decisions taken by the XML Schema WG on these issues.  This
note is just to make sure that there is some formal notification to
you of the decisions we have taken.  (If you have already receieved
a formal response from a member of the XML Schema WG, please pardon
the redundancy; my record-keeping is imperfect.)

On LC-211, the WG declined to add masks to the XML Schema language,
because in connection with such a move we would either have to remove
regular expressions, thus reducing the power of the language, or else
not remove regular expressions, thus increasing the complexity of the
spec and of implementations, without increasing the power of the
language.

On LC-212, the WG agrees that it would be useful to have standard,
predefined types for currency-labeled amounts, and plans to develop a
library of useful complex types of this kind in collaboration with
other WGs.  We invite the XForms WG to collaborate with us in this
effort.

On LC-213 and LC-214, discussion between the two WGs has seemed to
show that what you mean by 'facet' is not quite what the XML Schema
spec means by 'facet'; it is our belief that the upshot of the
clarifications has been that no changes are needed in the XML
Schema spec to allow you to do what you need, after all.

Further information on these issues and other points touched on
in your review of XML Schema can be found in the last-call issues
list (http://www.w3.org/2000/05/12-xmlschema-lcissues).

It would be helpful to us to know whether you are satisfied with the
decisions taken by the WG on these issues, or wish your dissent from the
WG's decision to be recorded for consideration by the Director of
the W3C.

We thank you again for your comments and help.

with best regards,

-C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
  World Wide Web Consortium
  Co-chair, W3C XML Schema WG
Received on Saturday, 7 October 2000 23:38:39 GMT

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