W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sml@w3.org > October 2007

[w3c sml] Schema 1.1 Structures review - action required by 2007-10-17

From: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 11:01:26 -0400
To: public-sml@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF170C82BC.44826843-ON8525736F.00505701-8525736F.0052AF72@us.ibm.com>
I reviewed the Structures spec and blizzarded the Schema bugzilla with my 
comments over the past 2 days.  These represent my personal comments 
however, not our working group's comments.  Since we all want to focus our 
time on the SML business I think, we do not, absent a request from wg 
members, plan to discuss my schema comments on SML calls or SML F2F 
We do however have a "good citizens" obligation to provide comments to the 
Schema wg from the SML wg as a whole.  I will volunteer to take care of 
the bugzilla work, however we do need to figure out which if any of bugs 
and/or of other people's issues are worthy of making formal wg-to-wg 
Tier 1: review the bugs in the attached csv file, and if you feel any of 
them should be formal wg-wg comments then send that list, pasted from the 
csv, as plain text.  Any such bug with >=3 SML members "voting" to make 
them formal and none voting against, I will update after our F2F next week 
as representing a consensus of the SML wg.  I don't think anyone needs to 
bother with the roughly half of them marked editorial, but I won't object 
if you want those made wg-wg comments too.  If we have someone voting 
_against_ making a particular bug wg-wg, we will likely have to discuss in 
some venue unless everyone's opinion can be flushed out via email.
Tier 2: review the following sections of the Schema 1.1 spec, which I did 
not open bugs against but which seemed to me to potentially 
impact/influence SML.  We _might_ choose to make one or more of those 
wg-wg comments too.
1.1 spec URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-1/
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-1/#cElement_Declarations {value 
constraint} section... given all our discussions about how to deal with 
sml:ref default/fixed values, I wondered what impact default/fixed element 
value constraints might have on reference schemes, and whether the 
approach we took for sml:ref also covers elements.
Tier 3: any comments not covered in tiers 1/2 that others want to bring up 
wrt Schema 1.1 and SML.

Separately of our comments on Schema, the editors might wish to look at 
the contents of certain sections for ideas on how to cover certain issues 

Best Regards, John

Street address: 2455 South Road, Poughkeepsie, NY USA 12601
Voice: 1+845-435-9470      Fax: 1+845-432-9787

Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2007 15:02:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:24:23 UTC