W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > January to March 2001

CR 47 Response: Allow simple types to be final? abstract?

From: Asir S Vedamuthu <asirv@webmethods.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 10:53:17 -0500
To: <rschloss@us.ibm.com>, <mccaleb@eeel.nist.gov>
Cc: "Www-Xml-Schema-Comments@W3. Org" <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NPENICOLABLCDIJKMGEMMEMOCCAA.asirv@webmethods.com>
Re-sending 'cos I forgot to CC comments

-----Original Message-----
From: Asir S Vedamuthu [mailto:asirv@webmethods.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 5:08 PM
To: rschloss@us.ibm.com; mccaleb@eeel.nist.gov
Subject: CR 47 Response: Allow simple types to be final? abstract?


Dear Bob Schloss and Mike McCaleb,

The W3C XML Schema Working Group has spent the last several weeks working
through the comments received from the public on the Candidate
Recommendation (CR) of the XML Schema specification. We thank you for the
comments you made on our specification during our CR comment period, and
want to make sure you know that all comments received during the CR comment
period have been recorded in our CR issues list
(http://www.w3.org/2000/12/xmlschema-crcomments.html).

You raised the point ([1] and [2]) registered as issue CR-47: Allow simple
types to be final? abstract?
http://www.w3.org/2000/12/xmlschema-crcomments.html#abstract-simples

final? Another commentator raised the same issue and is registered as CR-35.
WG closed CR-35 by adding the ability to block further derivation of simple
types.

abstract? WG considered an abstract simple type proposal at length. In fact,
it was added to the draft and remained in it for several weeks. In the end,
this proposal proved to have more complicated consequences and the WG
decided to remove it from XML Schema 1.0 In addition, the built-in type
heirarchy changed considerably when the WG decided to resolve other related
CR comments. Particularly,

- Removed recurringDuration and timePeriod
- Removed binary
- Added base64Binary and hexBinary
- Simplified NOTATION

These changes eliminated the need for 'MAGIC' constraints that you pointed
out.

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.

[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2000OctDec/0234
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2000OctDec/0464


Regards,

Asir S Vedamuthu
XML Schema Working Group
Received on Monday, 5 March 2001 10:54:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:12:49 GMT