Re: incorrect URL within XML Schema 1.1 spec

The red box on the XPath 1.0 and 2.0 specs was changed to a less scary black box:

https://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xpath-19991116/

https://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-xpath20-20101214/

at the insistence of the XSL WG, who were horrified when they saw what had been done (*). It's a shame that the same change wasn't made to related docs such as F+O at the same time. I think the red box is far too strong for a spec that is "alive" in the sense that lots of people are using it and there are other specs that reference it normatively.

(*) I believe that Sharon, as XSL WG chair, felt that the joint XQuery/XSLT meeting had no authority to make changes to XPath 1.0.

Michael Kay
Saxonica


> On 4 Mar 2018, at 06:46, Liam R. E. Quin <liam@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 2018-03-04 at 10:57 +0530, Mukul Gandhi wrote:
>> Hello,
>>    I think, the URL  https://www.w3.org/TR/2010/
>> REC-xpath-functions-20101214/ I talked about in my previous mail
>> should be
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/ (which is also referred from
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/xpath20/ in the normative references).
>> 
>> The page http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/ (which redirects to
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-operators/), also displays a red
>> rectangle
>> with similar contents I talked about. 
> 
> No, http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/ does not have a red
> rectangle. it returns XPath and XQuery Functions and Operators 3.1.
> It does not redirect to https://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-operators/.
> 
> However, https://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-operators/ *does* have a red
> rectangle, because I put it there, on the instruction of the XQuery and
> XSLT Working Groups, who are no longer maintaining that old document.
> 
> 
>> I think I'd be fine with the red
>> rectangle and its contents.
>> 
>> But I think, to edit https://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-operators/ (i.e to
>> delete
>> its red rectangle), a different WG needs to be involved (not XML
>> Schema WG).
> 
> The note in the red rectangle is a true statement. F&O 1 is not
> maintained. No-one is processing errata. It's not likely there will
> ever be a new edition. Instead, there's F&O 3.0 and 3.1.
> 
> It's possible XSD could be edited to fix a link, but it sounds like
> it's not necessary? It should indeed go to the not-maintained document.
> 
> There's no longer a W3C XML Schema Working Group and has not been one
> for some years.
> 
> The red box doesn't mean the spec isn't being used, it means there's
> no-one available to edit or republish it. The volnteers stopped
> volunteering and the compnies withdrew support, because the Working
> Group's primary work was finished and done and ended and happy and
> wonderful.
> 
> Liam
> 
> -- 
> Liam Quin, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
> Staff contact for Verifiable Claims WG, SVG WG, XQuery WG
> Improving Web Advertising: https://www.w3.org/community/web-adv/
> Personal: awesome vintage art: http://www.fromoldbooks.org/
>

Received on Sunday, 4 March 2018 08:00:17 UTC