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

RE: [Update #2] XML Schema 1.1 Tutorial

From: Costello, Roger L. <costello@mitre.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:50:59 -0400
To: "'David Ezell'" <David_E3@VERIFONE.com>, "'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>
Message-ID: <9E51F88D5247B648908850C35A3BBB50040394F377@IMCMBX3.MITRE.ORG>

Thanks Noah, Dave, Eliot,

I changed the slides (slide 25 and slide 253) about <redefine> to say:

   The XML Schema working group is considering 
   deprecating the <redefine> element.

Noah, I also changed slide 50 per your suggestion:

http://www.xfront.com/xml-schema-1-1/xml-schema-1-1.ppt

/Roger

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Ezell [mailto:David_E3@VERIFONE.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:03 PM
> To: Costello, Roger L.; 'Eliot Kimber'; noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
> Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org; sandygao@ca.ibm.com
> Subject: RE: [Update #2] XML Schema 1.1 Tutorial
> 
> First, taking the opportunity...  Roger, thanks very much for 
> this tutorial.  I can't speak for the WG, but as chair, I 
> deeply appreciate it!
> 
> Now on to the question of deprecating redefine...
> 
> I believe that Noah is right, that given the "priority 
> feedback" nature of the plan to deprecate redefine, it would 
> be appropriate, at this point, to note that the deprecation 
> subject to feedback (Noah's suggested wording seems fine to me).
> 
> That said, "deprecation" doesn't mean you can't use a 
> feature, and it absolutely doesn't mean that it's optional in 
> XML Schema 1.1 -- <redefine> is >not< a "feature at risk", 
> only its designation as deprecated is a "feature at risk".  
> Further, the designation doesn't imply that you're 
> misinformed or deficient in some way if you >do< use it.  I 
> use deprecated Java classes all the time -- they're embedded 
> in my applications.  And I don't take offense or exception 
> when classes I like are deprecated.  But the designation does 
> help to inform my choices going forward.
> 
> The designation is simply an indication (or in this case a 
> "potential indication") to folks starting from scratch that 
> they should consider using "override" instead.  
> 
> Best regards,
> David Ezell
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Costello, Roger L.
> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 11:30 AM
> To: 'Eliot Kimber'; noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
> Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org; 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 17:51:40 GMT

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