- From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 07:08:22 -0600
- To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
- Cc: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>, bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
On 4 Aug 2008, at 11:56 , noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote: > > David Ezell writes: > >> XML Schema 1.1 notably (at least at this point) does >not< >> address composition > > That's a bit strong, and I expect it's not what you intended. What > XSD 1.1 > does not do is to substantially improve the flawed presentation of > composition that was in XSD 1.0. XSD 1.1 certainly does address > composition, it just doesn't do it particularly better than 1.0 > did. In > fact, even that is a bit pessimistic, since we've made a few > organizational revisions to the presentation thinks like > xsd:import. I do > agree with what I take to be the spirit of your comment: the > presentation > of redfine in XSD 1.0 is at best somewhat confusing and at worst > ambiguous, underspecified and/or self-contradictory, and XSD 1.1 does > little if anything to improve that. That is among the reasons for > deprecating use of that feature. I think it's misleading to focus on "presentation". The problems are not editorial but substantive in nature; a cluster of bug reports make clear that the treatment of composition in both XSD 1.0 and XSD 1.1 contains a number of self-contradictions. The Working Group was unable to make any progress on resolving these contradictions, because removing the contradictions would require removing at least one of the normative statements involved in the contradiction, which would be an incompatible change. Speaking for myself, I think it's quite fair to say that XSD 1.1 does not address any of the major problems encountered by users in the XSD 1.0 composition mechanisms. --CMSMcQ
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2008 13:08:59 UTC