W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > August 2009

RE: [Update #2] XML Schema 1.1 Tutorial

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:03:12 -0400
To: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>
Cc: "'Eliot Kimber'" <ekimber@reallysi.com>, "sandygao@ca.ibm.com" <sandygao@ca.ibm.com>, "xmlschema-dev@w3.org" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF331FAE79.DED6CB9D-ON85257610.005D65FE-85257610.005DAE82@lotus.com>
Roger Costello writes:

> Here's what the XML Schema 1.1 specification says:
> 
>    The <redefine> construct is *deprecated*

I acknowledged that.  Immediately below the text you quote, it says:

"Editorial Note: Priority Feedback Request

"The Working Group requests feedback from readers, schema authors, 
implementors, and other users of this specification as to the desirability 
of retaining, removing, deprecating, or not deprecating the use of 
<redefine>. Since the <override> facility provides similar functionality 
but does not require a restriction or extension relation between the new 
and the old definitions of redefined components, the Working Group is 
particularly interested in learning whether users of this specification 
find that requirement useful or not."

That means there was at least some concern in the working group as to 
whether the proposal to deprecate is in fact a good one.  It also means 
that Eliot's feedback is very much to the point, and I'm sure the working 
group will welcome it.  Eliot: I strongly suggest that you send your 
comment as formal feedback.  The instructions for doing this are:

"The Candidate Recommendation review period for this document extends 
until 3 August 2009. Comments on this document should be made in W3C's 
public installation of Bugzilla, specifying "XML Schema" as the product. 
Instructions can be found at http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/01/public-bugzilla
. If access to Bugzilla is not feasible, please send your comments to the 
W3C XML Schema comments mailing list, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org (
archive) Each Bugzilla entry and email message should contain only one 
comment. "

Thank you.

Noah

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








"Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>
08/12/2009 11:29 AM
 
        To:     "'Eliot Kimber'" <ekimber@reallysi.com>, 
"noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
        cc:     "xmlschema-dev@w3.org" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>, 
"sandygao@ca.ibm.com" <sandygao@ca.ibm.com>
        Subject:        RE: [Update #2]  XML Schema 1.1 Tutorial



Here's what the XML Schema 1.1 specification says:

   The <redefine> construct is *deprecated*

/Roger 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eliot Kimber [mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 11:26 AM
> To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com; Costello, Roger L.
> Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org; sandygao@ca.ibm.com
> Subject: Re: [Update #2] XML Schema 1.1 Tutorial
> 
> On 8/12/09 10:14 AM, "noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com"
> <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > Overall, I think this is excellent, and much improved from the first
> > version.  One quibble, though reasonable people might 
> disagree with my
> > position on this:
> > 
> > You say on Slide 25 that <redefine> is deprecated, but that 
> is followed in
> > the CR draft with a feedback request asking the community 
> whether such
> > deprecation is a good idea.  Speaking for myself (not IBM), 
> I think it's
> > too early to deprecate redefine.  It's a supported feature 
> of 1.0, and as
> > far as I know it's widely used.  Although there's some optimism that
> > <override> will be a good substitute, that's as yet 
> unproven and in any
> > case deprecating features that users have already deployed 
> at best tends
> > to make them nervous.
> 
> The DITA standard depends entirely on the redefine feature in 
> XSD 1.0. While
> we are hoping that XSD 1.1 provides a better alternative to 
> redefine, until
> it's both defined and implemented sufficiently widely (e.g., 
> in Xerces and
> other widely-used XML parsers) we cannot move away from the 
> use of redefine.
> 
> For DITA's sake, I agree with Noah that deprecating redefine 
> in XSD 1.1
> would be premature and probably result in serious PR 
> difficulties for DITA,
> where use of XSD is already dicey because of the current 
> implementation
> status and spec ambiguity of redefine in XSD 1.0.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Eliot
> 
> 
> ----
> Eliot Kimber | Senior Solutions Architect | Really Strategies, Inc.
> email:  ekimber@reallysi.com <mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com>
> office: 610.631.6770 | cell: 512.554.9368
> 2570 Boulevard of the Generals | Suite 213 | Audubon, PA 19403
> www.reallysi.com <http://www.reallysi.com>  | http://blog.reallysi.com
> <http://blog.reallysi.com> | www.rsuitecms.com 
> <http://www.rsuitecms.com> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 12 August 2009 17:16:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:15:14 GMT