Re: Bugzilla tracking records for WAI PF comments on XSD 1.1 (was: Re: XSD 1.1 Comment 4 (of 4) from WAI-PF)

On 5 Mar 2009, at 18:44 , C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote:

> On 26 Feb 2009, Janina Sajka sent several messages to the
> www-xml-schema-comments mailing list with comments on
> the XSD 1.1 Last Call working drafts.  The XML Schema WG
> is not meeting this week, so you won't get a formal response
> from the WG until then, but in the meantime I want (in my
> role as editor of the spec) to thank you very much for
> your review of the specs and for your helpful comments.
>
> In order to make it easier to track the issues you raise,
> I have made Bugzilla entries for your four comments.
> The four Bugzilla entries are at:
>
>  http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6654
>  http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6655
>  http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6657
>  http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6658

This email is intended to inform the WAI PF WG of the disposition
of your comments on XSD 1.1.  Once again, on behalf of the XML
Schema WG I thank you for your reading of our spec and for
your comments.

You made four comments.

1 (tracked as bug 6654) was understood by the XML Schema WG
as a request for confirmation that nothing in the XSD notion
of 'symbol spaces' conflicts with the use of the prefix
'aria-' rather than an 'aria' namespace, for the definition
of ARIA attributes.

There were some members of the XML Schema WG who doubted
the wisdom of using such prefixes instead of using the
XML namespaces mechanism, but the consensus of the WG was that
you are right in believing there is no conflict.

2 (tracked as bug 6655):  you expressed concern about the
statement in XSD 1.1 that schema processors should provide
user control over whether and how schemaLocation hints are
actually dereferenced.

The XML Schema WG added a note to the spec, whose text is given
at http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6655#c2,
to try to clarify expectations in this area.

3 (tracked as bug 6657)  You noted that the type hierarchy
diagram in the Datatypes spec lacked a long description.
(You also said you thought the new graphic was helpful,
for which I personally thank you.)  A new long description
has been added (both via the longdesc attribute of the
img element and via a text link in the image caption).  The
result can be inspected in the status-quo version of the
XSD 1.1 Datatypes spec at

   http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-2/datatypes.html#built-in-datatypes
   (W3C member-only link)

The XML Schema WG believes that this change resolves issue 6657,
but comments on the style of the long description remain
fervently desired.

4 (tracked as bug 6658) you express satisfaction with the
new dateTimeStamp datatype.  To which the XML Schema WG can
only respond "thank you".

With the changes to the XSD 1.1 spec outlined above and
described in more detail in the relevant Bugzilla entries, the
XML Schema WG believes that all four of your comments have
been satisfactorily resolved.

Please let us know if you agree with this resolution of your
issues, either by commenting in Bugzilla or by replying to
this email. If we don't hear from you in the next ten days
or so, we will assume that you are satisified with our
disposition of your issues.

best regards,

C. M. Sperberg-McQueen



-- 
****************************************************************
* C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, Black Mesa Technologies LLC
* http://www.blackmesatech.com
* http://cmsmcq.com/mib
* http://balisage.net
****************************************************************

Received on Saturday, 18 April 2009 04:32:51 UTC