RE: New Issue: use XSD to describe the syntax [i032]

I'm only interested in XML 1.0.  XML 1.1 should have never been
published as a Rec given the backwards incompatibility and lack of
foreseeable Schema support.

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of paul.downey@bt.com
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 1:33 PM
> To: rsalz@datapower.com; Mark Nottingham
> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: RE: New Issue: use XSD to describe the syntax [i032]
> 
> Rich wrote:
> >   a) Should we describe the specification using XML Schema?
> >   b) Should such a schema replace the "pseudo-schema"?
> >   c) Should such a schema be normative?
> >   d) Should such a schema be developed alongside the spec, or should
we
> > wait until the spec is more stable (i.e., is someone willing to
track
> > the spec)?
> >
> > Would you agree?
> 
> i'm all for providing normative schemas for each of our bindings, esp
for
> testing purposes. that does, however, possibly raise issues regarding
> which version of XML would be supported ..
> 
> Ignoring XML 1.1 completely could be seen as being politically
incorrect
> given it's now a W3C recommendation ..
> 
> The WSDL WG went to great lengths to abstract the types used to store
> informational items in their component model so as to support XML 1.0
and
> 1.1 and other possible serialisations.  i guess we could go down a
similar
> path
> and make the types in the core spec abstract, but that might not make
> sense to
> everyone.
> 
> Given Schema 1.0 doesn't (yet) support XML 1.1 we would be only able
to
> provide schemas for the SOAP and WSDL bindings for XML 1.0 anyway.
> 
> Paul

Received on Friday, 12 November 2004 21:43:51 UTC