W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-names-editor@w3.org > December 2002

RE: FW: XML Query WG Feedback on Sept WD of Namespaces in XML 1.1

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 09:25:11 -0600
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20021205091000.0190ac08@172.27.10.30>
To: "Kay, Michael" <Michael.Kay@softwareag.com>
Cc: XML Core WG <w3c-xml-core-wg@w3.org>, w3c-xml-query-wg@w3.org, xml-names-editor@w3.org

[I am replying to Michael K's reply to Richard's reply to Michael R's
reply to Richard's reply to the Query WG Namespace 1.1 comments.
Richard's reply had the wrong address for the XML Core WG, so MK's
reply did too.  paul]

>From: "Kay, Michael" <Michael.Kay@softwareag.com>
>To: Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, Michael Rys <mrys@microsoft.com>
>Cc: w3c-xml-query-wg@w3.org, w3c-core-wg@w3.org, xml-names-editor@w3.org
>Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 13:02:48 +0100 
>Subject: RE: FW: XML Query WG Feedback on Sept WD of Namespaces in XML 1.1
>
>> 
>> Infosets produced by parsing XML 1.1 documents will have the 
>> [version] property of the document information item set to 
>> 1.1 (we don't even need an amendment to the Infoset spec for that).  
>> 
>> > (Note that this is not relevant to Namespaces 1.1 but XML 1.1).
>> 
>> I think it should really be considered a comment on the 
>> Infoset revision.
>> 
>
>I guess I'm not going to persuade anyone, but I think it is really
>unfortunate that the Core WG has decided to update the XML and Namespaces
>specs without making them reference the Infoset normatively. The result is a
>missed opportunity to clear up the confusion as to what parts of an XML
>document are information-bearing and what parts are not.

This is really more a comment on XML 1.1 and only tangentially on 
Namespaces 1.1.

The issue is one of requirements scope.  We made it clear from the start
that we were limiting the scope of XML 1.1 and Namespaces 1.1 very severely.  
The kind of change you suggest would take much more work and would likely 
have to be an XML 2.0 which would in turn open it up to many more desired 
changes which would in turn make it take exponentially longer to the point
where the window of opportunity could be completely missed.  The XML Core 
WG felt that it was preferable to bite off a smaller task and get it done
sooner.


>At some stage we need to invert this whole edifice: the InfoSet data model
>should be the primary specification, and the XML and Namespaces specs
>(hopefully merged) should merely describe one possible interface for
>creating an InfoSet.

Many people agree with you here.  In fact, when the XML Core WG last
discussed possible futures at our f2f last February, such reorganization
of the specs was high on the list of possible things to do.

The issue is always "at which stage".  It would have been best if done 
five years ago when XML was developed.  At this point, though, one has 
to weigh the benefits of cleaning up specs and reducing confusion--but 
not really adding any benefit for end users--against the huge cost of 
the actual effort.

paul
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2002 10:25:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:43 GMT