W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2010

Re: Schemas and validation

From: Krzysztof Maczyński <1981km@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 18:07:16 +0100
Message-ID: <47DE96852DD14A9686F32892EC88713D@kmPC>
To: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: <public-html@w3.org>
> We need to move on to concrete suggestions that apply to work products 
> that are produced by this working group.
Is supporting a position stated in a reported bug always considered a step aimed at delaying progress of our documents? I meant just to add my input to discussion.
> It is also my personal opinion, based on the limits of what can be 
> expressed in an XSD, the most that can be achieved is for such a schema 
> to be included either as a non-normative appendix or as a separate document.
Referencing the RELAX NG schema informatively would be fine, and indeed the best possibility if nobody pursues (e.g. for the reason that it's very difficult in this WG to get a provisional acceptance for the result of any work item, enabling the individual to believe that it'll be likely included, of course after resolving specific problems identified by others, but not overthrowing the general idea) an option more costly in terms of work. (People will do it anyway after Rec, e.g. those developing validators and authoring tools; it's just the spec that will be suboptimal by not mentioning at least one.)
All mentions of XSD have been made about version 1.0. As you may know, 1.1 adds much expressiveness, especially assertions.
> If that is something you wish to work on, let us know.  If not, my 
> opinion is that it is highly likely that the lack of an non-normative 
> appendix is unlikely to hold up HTML5 proceeding.
Nor should it, but why the reluctance to add it?

Best regards,

Krzysztof Maczyński
Received on Tuesday, 2 March 2010 17:08:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:59 UTC