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: Michael Rys <mrys@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 14:58:45 -0800
Message-ID: <5C39F806F9939046B4B1AFE652500A3A03CA9D3E@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Paul Grosso" <pgrosso@arbortext.com>, "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>

The comment below for now is personal Michael Rys since neither the
XQuery WG nor Microsoft had time to perform a review.

They are related to XML Namespaces 1.1, XML 1.1 and Infoset and should
not be hold the progression to the CR period. However, I reserve the
right to raise it to a blocking factor to get out of the CR period if I
consider the overall combinations of the specs to be not consistent in
this respect.

Best regards
Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Grosso [mailto:pgrosso@arbortext.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 12:20 PM
> To: Michael Rys; Kay, Michael
> Cc: XML Core WG; w3c-xml-query-wg@w3.org; xml-names-editor@w3.org
> Subject: RE: FW: XML Query WG Feedback on Sept WD of Namespaces in XML
1.1
> 
> For the purposes of the XML Core WG's planned request for CR
> for Namespaces in XML 1.1, I need to have the following two
> things documented in the <xml-names-editor@w3.org> archive
> by the end of day Monday December 9th:
> 
> 1.  Whether this is a comment against the Namespaces in XML 1.1
>     spec that the XML Core WG should represent as an outstanding
>     objection to Namespaces in XML 1.1 when we request CR, and
>     if so, then
> 
> 2.  Whether this objection should be listed as an objection from
>     the XML Query WG, Microsoft, or the person of Michael Rys.
> 
> Lacking the above documentation, I will assume there is no
> outstanding objection to Namespaces in XML 1.1 when we send
> in our request for CR.
> 
> thank you,
> 
> paul
> 
> At 11:59 2002 12 05 -0800, Michael Rys wrote:
> 
> >I think that we can avoid revving the Infoset along with XML 1.1 only
> >if:
> >
> >1. XML 1.1 describes a true superset of XML 1.0
> >2. XML 1.1's superset is not adding new concepts but only adds to the
> >value space of the information items (ie, undefining namespaces,
> >allowing more character information items) or is purely syntactical
> >(U+0002 has to be entitized).
> >
> >
> >In any other case, the Infoset needs to be rev'ed as well. I don't
think
> >it is acceptable to have Infosets that combine 1.0 and 1.1
information
> >items if the requirements above do not hold.
> >
> >Best regards
> >Michael
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Paul Grosso [mailto:pgrosso@arbortext.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 7:25 AM
> >> To: Kay, Michael
> >> Cc: XML Core WG; w3c-xml-query-wg@w3.org; xml-names-editor@w3.org
> >> Subject: RE: FW: XML Query WG Feedback on Sept WD of Namespaces in
XML
> >1.1
> >>
> >>
> >> [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 Friday, 6 December 2002 18:00:12 GMT

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