W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > April to June 2008

[Bug 5425] Revise Composition

From: <bugzilla@farnsworth.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 21:34:55 +0000
CC:
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1K1plv-00042e-MP@farnsworth.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5425





------- Comment #4 from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com  2008-05-29 21:34 -------
Well, I understand where MK is coming from on this, but on balance I think that
making <redefine> in particular optional would be a mistake at this point. 
Granting that there is troubling variability in the way that it is implemented,
I suspect that the simple cases interoperate reasonably well, and that at least
some users will depend on that.  In general, we have tried (at least I think
we've tried) to make it the case that Schema 1.0 documents will work as well
when given to Schema 1.1 processors as they do when given to Schema 1.0
processors.  

I'm lukewarm about the proposal to deprecate <redefine>, since we don't yet
have implementation experience to prove that <override> will work well.  I'm
optimistic, but it's still early.  Still, on balance, I can pretty easily live
with deprecating as long as support is required.  I don't think I can live with
making it optional.

So, if your argument carries the day on style grounds, and the group comes to
agree that deprecate should imply optional, then I have to take a pretty strong
stance that it can't be deprecated.  If that argument does not carry the day,
then I'm quite OK with making having support required in processors, but use
deprecated for schema authors, as I believe is proposed in the current draft.

Noah
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2008 21:35:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:13:15 GMT