W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > July to September 2002

Re: Candidate Requirement for XML Schema 1.1

From: Dave Peterson <davep@acm.org>
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 16:41:36 -0400
Message-Id: <a05010400b97b29bd0b63@[209.150.45.77]>
To: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@datadirect-technologies.com>, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Cc: w3c-xml-schema-ig@w3.org

At 5:39 PM -0400 8/8/02, Jonathan Robie wrote:
>In order to improve interoperability, I would like to suggest that XML
>Schema 1.1 adopt the following requirement:
>
>     Interoperability
>
>     XML Schema 1.1 will define a language that is implemented
>     compatibly across at least 3 XML Schema processors. Features
>     that are not part of this interoperable language will be deprecated
>     in XML Schema 1.1.
>
>The features that would be deprecated were never implemented
>interoperably in the first place, which indicates either that they
>were too complex to implement or were not sufficiently interesting to
>users.

This to me implies that no new features can be added, since they
automatically have not yet been implemented.  E.g., precisionDecimal
must then wait for 2.0.  I don't think this is what people want.

If an existing feature has not been implemented across the board,
perhaps it is not that it is inherently too complicated, but that we
did not describe it properly.  Seems a shame to rule it out then.

I thought one of the purposes of 1.1 was to better describe the
features so that incompatabilities between implementations could
be eliminated.  This seems to make more sense than simply saying
"if we didn't get it right in 1.0, it's obviously not useful and
hence is hereby deprecated".
-- 
Dave Peterson
SGMLWorks!

davep@acm.org
Received on Saturday, 10 August 2002 16:42:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:13:01 GMT