RE: [Bug 4630] Clarify relation of SML and XML 1.0 vs 1.1

I have opened a new bug for removing the "profile" verbiage from Section 3.


I think that the existing para 2 will suffice for the normative dependency section, and para 1 and para 3 can be removed

Conforming implementations of this specification MUST support XML 1.0 [XML
1.0], XML Schema 1.0 [XML Schema Structures, XML Schema Datatypes], Schematron
[ISO/IEC 19757-3] and XPath 1.0 [XPath 1.0]. However, the current specification
does not impose any restrictions on using newer versions of the XML, XML
Schema, Schematron or XPath specifications.


-----Original Message-----
From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 9:55 AM
To: public-sml@w3.org
Subject: [Bug 4630] Clarify relation of SML and XML 1.0 vs 1.1


http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4630





------- Comment #6 from popescu@ca.ibm.com  2007-09-06 16:55 -------
Re comment #5

Pratul: The first para states that SML uses a profile of XML Schema 1.0 - which
is not true any longer.
Valentina : I tried to use the existing statements. In section 4.Schemas, the
first paragraph reads : 'SML uses a profile of W3C XML Schema 1.0 [XML Schema
Structures, XML Schema Datatypes] to define constraints on the structure of
data in a model.' If this not true anymore than this section should be updated
as well.

Pratul: I also don't understand the phrase "and defines datatypes
depending on definitions in XML 1.0" - the SML datatypes are based on XML
Schema 1.0 and not XML 1.0
Valentina: Probably not the best description on how SML relates to XML 1.0. The
only reference I could find on XML 1.0 in the SML document is on section 2.2
Terminology : Document is a 'A well-formed XML 1.0 document, as defined in [XML
1.0].'
I am not quite sure how to put this into a normative dependency, I need
suggestions.

Pratul:I am not comfortable with the last para since we are not providing any
guidance on how the "most recent versions" should be used.
Valentina: This is the 'open ceiling' agreed to in the f2f. If more is to be
said here I think we need some brainstorming on what this should would be.

Pratul:Plus, the para appears to be redundant since the 2nd para has already
made it clear that implementations can use newer versions of the spec.
Valentina: Not identical. The last paragraph talks about ANY of the Normative
references as defined in the References section; this is more than XML, XML
Schema, Schematron and XPath. Second paragraph talks only about those 4

Received on Thursday, 6 September 2007 17:57:32 UTC