Re: [Bug 3679] Schema component for namespace

On 26 Feb 2007, at 11:16 , Kohsuke Kawaguchi wrote:

> C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote:
>> The Working Group did not officially record a rationale for this
>> decision; speaking for myself, I would offer the reasoning that (a)
>> it's not quite clear what is being suggested, and in particular how
>> what is being suggested differs from the 'namespace schema  
>> information
>> information items' which are the content of the 'schema information'
>> property on the validation root, both in XML Schema 1.0
>> (http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#d0e17275) and in our current 1.1
>> draft (http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-1/#d0e25780), and
>
> No, this is not about PSVI.
>
> My understanding is that, generally speaking, XML Schema considers  
> the component model to be the truth and the the XML syntax of the  
> XML Schema to be just one of the many possible ways to represent them.
>
> What I wanted to point out is that today there's no way to  
> associate documentation and appinfos to a particular namespace. You  
> can attach them to element declarations, complex types (among many  
> others), as well as the schema-as-a-whole, but the current  
> component model simply lacks a way to "annotate" a namespace,  
> because there's no schema component that represents a namespace.
>
> If there's perhaps a "namespace" schema component, then it would  
> have annotations and appinfos as a property, and this provides the  
> most natural place to put such namespace-specific annotation into it.

Ah.  Sorry for misunderstanding.  I think I now see your point.
Sorry to have been dense.


> > (b) judging
>> from the information available, the cost/benefit ratio of the change
>> falls on the wrong side of the place where the Working Group has  
>> drawn
>> the line for 1.1.  The Working Group has been willing to change the
>> component structure only when absolutely necessary, so the effective
>> cost of the proposal is high.  And the benefit is not as clear as it
>> would need to be to justify that cost.
>
> I certainly understand that changing a component model is a costly  
> change, and if the WG felt that the benefit by this change doesn't  
> justify that, then I respect that decision.

Thank you.

Michael

Received on Monday, 26 February 2007 19:50:01 UTC