- From: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:14:18 +0200
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- CC: public-webcgm-wg@w3.org
Lofton Henderson wrote: > Hi Thierry, > > I basically agree with you: it is out of scope for this review. It > would be a large amount of work to do this, and would heavily impact the > schedule, which has already slipped too much. I think, in the worst > case, it could end up essentially requiring a rewrite of Ch.4. > > I also tend to think there may be some merit to the idea, had it been > brought up earlier. (E.g., during "Requirements" phase, or a year ago > at latest (CS review / 1st WD review). > > We should (and will) have a full discussion in the full WG, of course. > I particularly want to understand his comment about Namespace. Namespace are better handled by Schemas. There are conversion tools from DTD to relax NG schemas, but of course these are only a translation and the schema outputted does not provide more infos (for example constraints that Schema offer and that DTDs don't do). > > It might be interesting to see if someone would like to write a Relax NG > schema as a side project -- to be a technical article, but not a > normative part of 2.1 at this time. If it works out well and people > like it, then perhaps it could be added to the REC/OS in a quick future > Amendment, rather than delaying 2.1 further. I agree. > > Thoughts, others? > > -Lofton. > > p.s. Dave & I looked at the CSS question and wrote a paper, long ago: > http://www.cgmopen.org/webcgm/readings.html > http://www.cgmopen.org/technical/stylable_cgm_submitted_0324.pdf > > At 01:45 PM 6/22/2009 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote: >> Here is our first LC comment. >> Unfortunately this comment seem to be out of scope, as we are >> requesting comments only on the differences between this second Last >> Call Working Draft and the First Public and Last Call Working Draft. >> >> For XML Schema and/or Relax NG schema, unless someone wants to provide >> one ;-) >> we should probably say that yes it is a good idea, but we don't have >> the ressource for such work and it is not required by the W3C to >> release such Schema. >> >> Thoughts ? >> >> Thierry >> >> >> >> Innovimax SARL wrote: >>> Dear, >>> First congratulations for your 2.1 version >>> I want to spot some improvement that I wanted to be incorporated in >>> this version >>> == moving forward with XML Schema or Relax NG == >>> Sticking to DTD to define a XML dialect is neither sufficient neither >>> a way to widespread the use of this XML dialect. For that, I ask the >>> WG to consider providing normative XML Schema and/or Relax NG schema >>> of the XCF model. It will help adoption especially because XCF uses >>> Namespaces. >>> == interaction between WebCGM and CSS == >>> Is it possible to consider the role that could play CSS vis à vis >>> WebCGM ? >>> Regards, >>> Mohamed ZERGAOUI >>> >> >> >> > >
Received on Monday, 22 June 2009 13:14:55 UTC