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

Re: CR-14 value space of entities, notations, IDREFs

From: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 18:29:33 +0700
Message-ID: <3AA8BE9D.689F6533@jclark.com>
To: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>
CC: W3C XML Schema Comments list <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
"C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" wrote:
 
> As the WG was upon the point of instructing the editors to make
> the appropriate change, however, it was observed that we are
> required by charter to define our simple types in such a way that
> they can be used in applications other than XML Schema.  And in
> other applications are not guaranteed to have any notion of XML
> Schema components or element information items -- for such
> applications, changing the definition of the value space would
> appear to make the type either incomprehensible or unusable.

I don't follow this.  Why does my formulation require any notion of XML
Schema components? It does require a notion of element information
items, but an element information item is just abstraction of an XML
element. So it seems to me that all that my formulation requires is the
notion of an XML element.  I don't see how making IDREF depend on the
XML concept of an element prevents its being used outside XML Schema.

> And so, with some regret (at least on my part), the WG concluded
> that we could not adopt your proposal after all.
> 
> 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.

At this point I'm not satisfied, because I don't understand the WG's
reasoning.

James
Received on Friday, 9 March 2001 06:31:50 GMT

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