W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > July to September 2007

[Bug 3075] XML 1.0 or 1.1 user override

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:42:28 +0000
CC:
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1IV6we-0000FI-1I@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3075


fsasaki@w3.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |CLOSED




------- Comment #7 from fsasaki@w3.org  2007-09-11 14:42 -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> Francois, thank you for raising this issue about user overrides of
> heuristics for choosing between datatypes based on XML 1.0 and 
> datatypes based on XML 1.1.
> 
> The Working Group discussed this issue during today's telcon.  There
> was some support for the change proposed here, but also some
> opposition.  In the end, it became clear that the conflicting views
> which led to the existing compromise text were both still present in
> the WG and both still deeply held.
> 
> On the one hand, there are those who stress the importance of support
> for XML 1.1 and point to the drawbacks of all known heuristics for
> choosing automatically between XML 1.0 and XML 1.1, and who feel, with
> the original poster, that the best solution is to make the SHOULD be a
> MUST.  On the other side there are those who note that XSDL's
> conformance rules make it feasible to write conforming processors for
> very specialized applications (a minimally conforming processor, for
> example, may have a hard-coded schema suitale for one particular type
> of message; it's not impossible to imagine that for such a processor,
> the deployment scenario is well known and really does not require user
> control of the choice between XML 1.0 and 1.1, because the document
> type carefully follows conventions that allow a heuristic to work.
> Requiring user control in such a processor amounts to requiring either
> some unnecessary work (not necessarily a great deal, but still
> unnecessary), or requiring that such a processor not label itself
> 'conforming'.
> 
> The verb SHOULD signals that (in the words of XSDL 1.1 Structures):
> 
>     It is recommended that conforming documents and XSDL-aware
>     processors behave as described, but there can be valid reasons for
>     them not to; it is important that the full implications be
>     understood and carefully weighed before adopting behavior at
>     variance with the recommendation.
> 
> WG members in the first group would prefer a MUST here, but are
> willing to agree that a SHOULD is better than nothing at all; they may
> think that there are really very seldom valid reasons for not having
> user control over which version of the XML-related datatypes should be
> used, but SHOULD at least signals clearly that the user override is
> recommended and normally the right thing to do.  WG members in the
> other group would really prefer just a MAY here (or would prefer to
> say nothing at all about user overrides, on the premise that vendors
> and users know their needs better than a standardization committee is
> ever likely to), but they are willing to agree that a SHOULD is better
> than nothing at all: they may think that there are quite frequently
> valid reasons for not providing a user override on the choice of 1.0-
> or 1.1-based datatypes, but SHOULD at least signals that there CAN BE
> such valid reasons.
> 
> The upshot is that everyone in the WG can live with SHOULD, but after
> vigorous discussion the WG has been unable to find consensus either
> for MUST or for MAY here.
> 
> We propose, therefore, to close this comment without making any change
> to the spec.  Since we do not have consensus that the proposed change
> should NOT be made, it seems inappropriate to use the resolution
> keyword WONTFIX.  The question raised here remains an important one,
> and some (at least) in the WG believe the proposed change should be
> adopted, later if not sooner.  Accordingly, we are marking the issue
> resolved, with a resolution keyword of LATER.
> 
> Francois, as the originator of the issue, may I ask that you review
> our decision and its rationale, discuss them with the i18n WG, and
> signal either your acceptance of our rationale (by changing the status
> of this bug from RESOLVED to CLOSED), or your active dissent from it
> (by changing the status from RESOLVED to RE-OPENED, and providing some
> new arguments to try to break the logjam within the XML Schema WG).
> If we don't hear from you in the course of the next few weeks, we'll
> assume that silence implies consent.  (We usually say two weeks, but
> since it's August, perhaps four weeks would be safer.)
> 
> Thank you.  And (speaking for myself) sorry we were unable to 
> generate consensus for the change.
> 

Hello Michael, all,

We discussed the issue at our call today, see 
http://www.w3.org/2007/09/11-core-minutes#item04
We are not happy with your resolution but will accept it.

On behalf of the i18n core WG,

Felix
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2007 14:42:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:50:06 UTC