RE: [Bug 4638] Conformance section needed

Feedback indicates I confused _at least_ one person with this, so let me 
try a few more words:
We have a plan to publish (send to webmaster) 9/19.  I am not suggesting 
any change to that.
We have a goal for the 9/19 draft to make it something worth the Schema 
wg's time reviewing it.  I am not suggesting any change to that.
A comment was made about the normative/non-n split and how complete it is 
(now, by my interpolation, would be in the 9/19 draft).
The goal and the comment sound to me like they conflict.

Thus I wondered if the implication was that we should not be asking Schema 
wg (and others in the XML Activity) to review this draft, since 
1. I think w/o a clear split they will generate a bunch of spurious 
comments we'll have to separate from the substantive ones.
2. I think w/o a clear split readers will be motivated to ignore it as not 
baked so the first we'll see their feedback is on the LC draft, so LC 
comments will be more numerous and higher severity than they otherwise 
would be.
LC (and later) comments, as I understand it, have a rather heavier-weight 
set of tracking requirements than what we have used to date.  I know I 
don't need extra work, assume others are likewise.
I would prefer to keep the current intent of having other wgs review the 
9/19 draft, including espec Schema, since that minimizes the churn 
involved in coordinating any change to this decision.  We have already 
alerted other wgs that the draft is coming and they will be asked to 
review, plus there are timing issues (co-location/adjacent times) of the 
October meetings of Schema and SML wgs we have worked to put in place and 
the relationship between Schema's publication schedule and ours.  In a 
nutshell, the oil tanker is already en route and it's easier for lots of 
people if we don't change its course now.  If it arrives only half-loaded, 
not all customers will be happy.

The simplest way out of the (perhaps perceived only by me) conflict would 
be to get the normative/non-n split prioritized such that in the large it 
makes 9/19.  In my head at least this is some combination of a global 
"everything is normative except as stated.  examples, notes, ... are 
non-normative" stmt up front and (where entire sections are intended to be 
non-n, e.g. Intro) a change to the occasional heading text to append 
"(Non-N)" -or- adding a first paragraph to the section with the same 
content.

Best Regards, John

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



John Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS 
Sent by: public-sml-request@w3.org
09/11/2007 08:41 AM

To
public-sml@w3.org
cc

Subject
RE: [Bug 4638] Conformance section needed







> just refer to the normative sections (which are not clearly identified 
as such yet) 
Do we believe, based on current course and speed, that there will be a 
clear distinction between normative and non-normative specs in the 9/19 
draft?  If not, it calls into question our goal of having the Schema wg 
review it (at least in any useful way). 

Best Regards, John

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