Re: <time> values in HTML5

On 11/21/2011 11:46 AM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
> BTW as a point of W3C process, I don't think it's permissible to add
> new features to a CR without first going back to a last call that
> includes those new features.

Right.

However, as Michael Sperberg-McQueen has pointed out, the XSD spec now
allows processors to support additional types.

I think I'm right that this also opens the possibility for W3C itself to
make much more granular Recommendations to introduce new types in the
future. Traditionally, XSD Recommendations have taken (all too many) years
to hatch, and introduction of new types has been tied to such big releases.
I see no technical barrier to the Schema WG or some other W3C group
bringing out a Recommendation that would define one or a few new types, and
presumably along with that some conformance terminology to distinguish
processors that support the type from those that don't.

Whether doing such incremental Recommendations meets the needs of those who
implement validators or the needs of users, I'm not sure, but I don't see a
logistical or technical barrier to producing such a Recommendation.

> I'd suggest that for the purposes of transcoding to existing type/value
> systems (eg XML Schema 1.1) that the new values:
>
> 1. Be treated as a simple string
 > 2. Provide input to the next iteration
> of such existing type systems (eg XML Schema 1.2). Thus I would not hold
> back or modify any (even imminent) CR drafts.

So, another path would be to start as you suggest, but rather than waiting 
for a major XSD Release, consider putting out a recommendation just 
covering the new type(s) when they're stable. Maybe or maybe not such a 
Recommendation should come from the Schema WG as opposed to the HTML WG. In 
general, I think the open design of the XSD 1.1 type system points the way 
to a more decentralized development of type specifications; the Schema WG 
may want to be involved in setting conformance requirements for widely 
deployed schema validators (e.g. "an XSD 1.2 processor MUST support at 
least type1, type2, etc.).

Noah

Received on Friday, 2 December 2011 17:39:20 UTC