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 Cotton <pcotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 22:47:13 -0500
Message-ID: <E7AC4500EAB7A442ABA7521D1881439704CCB5C0@tor-msg-01.northamerica.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Paul Grosso" <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Cc: "XML Core WG" <w3c-xml-core-wg@w3.org>, <w3c-xml-query-wg@w3.org>, <xml-names-editor@w3.org>

I read the comments made by individual XML Query WG members as their
personal comments and that none were to be considered as blockages to
your progression of XML Namespaces to CR which I understand is going to
occur today.

The XML Query WG has no objections to you taking XML Namespaces 1.1 to
CR.  

But I will point out that we did not have enough time to process your
responses and we may resubmit some of our comments during the CR period.

/paulc

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada 
17 Eleanor Drive, Nepean, Ontario K2E 6A3 
Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329 
<mailto:pcotton@microsoft.com> 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Grosso [mailto:pgrosso@arbortext.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 3:20 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 Tuesday, 10 December 2002 22:47:41 GMT

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