RE: Liaison statement to W3C from SC 34/WG 1 [response from W3C's XML Core WG]

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jirka Kosek [mailto:jirka@kosek.cz] 
> Sent: Sunday, 2009 May 31 15:56
> To: Grosso, Paul
> Cc: Toshiko Kimura; Alex Brown; mzergaoui@innovimax.fr; 
> liam@w3.org; public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Liaison statement to W3C from SC 34/WG 1 
> [response from W3C's XML Core WG]
> 
> Grosso, Paul wrote:
> 
> > Thank you for your request regarding SC 34's desire to 
> > use the processing instruction target name token "xml-model" 
> > in Part 11 of ISO/IEC 19757 (DSDL). 
> 
> Hi Paul and XML Core WG,
> 
> thank you very much for your response to SC34/WG1 inquiry. Officially,
> SC34 will be able to respond you not earlier then after its plenary
> meeting hold in September in Seattle.
> 
> I'm project editor for Part 11. Please find below my short personal
> (unofficial) responses to your questions. I think that we can arrange
> some practical issues right now and then just confirm them in official
> response from SC34.

Hi Jirka,

Thanks for your response.

I agree that we should be able to work things out informally in the
near future.

> 
> > In general, we are receptive to your request, but at this
> > time we do not have a lot of details, so we are eager to
> > exchange ideas so that we can work together to ensure the
> > best result.  If we are going to allow the use of the
> > xml-model name, we would want an xml-model PI to be
> > generic enough to be used by any application to associate 
> > any kind of schema with an XML document.  The XML Core WG 
> > would like to be able to review drafts of the xml-model spec 
> > throughout its development.
> 
> This should not be problem as drafts are publicly available. 
> What is the
> most convenient way for you to be informed about such drafts? Should I
> send announcement to public-xml-core-wg@w3.org each time new draft is
> published?

Yes, please.

> 
> Also do you think you will be able to make decision and reserve
> xml-model name for us after you will see the initial draft? I 
> understand
> that you want to track xml-model spec through its whole 
> development. But
> personally I would like to see name reserved as soon as possible in
> order to create stable environment for implementers in early stages of
> standard development. It would be quite painful if we would have to
> change name of xml-model processing instruction very late in the
> standardization process. I hope that the first draft will be 
> good enough
> for making your decision and that it will clearly show the 
> direction and
> intent of this new Part 11. I suspect that later during standard
> development only minor issues and merely details will be dealt with.

The XML Core WG is generally willing to allow the use of xml-model
assuming--as I believe should be the case--that we can agree on
certain of our concerns.  It sounds to me like we are close to
agreement, with the possible issue of accessibility of the spec
(see below).

> 
> > We assume that the general syntax and semantics for most 
> > of the pseudo-attributes for the xml-model processing 
> > instruction will parallel that as defined in the Associating 
> > Stylesheet (AssocSS) spec that defines the xml-stylesheet 
> > processing instruction.
> 
> Yes, this was intent from the start.
> 
> > You should know that we are in the 
> > process of developing a new edition of the AssocSS spec, so 
> > you should be sure to coordinate your specification with our 
> > latest version.  (The additions are mostly clarifications
> > on error or other edge conditions.)
> 
> Thanks for information, I will make sure to synchronize with the new
> edition once it is available.

And I will let you know as soon as we have a draft.

> 
> > We assume you will be writing a specification for xml-model
> > that will be referenceable by everyone on the Web free of charge
> > so that anyone wishing to support the xml-model PI for any
> > reason--not just for DSDL--will have an official reference for 
> > it.  If this is not practical for you, then we would want to be 
> > able to republish the xml-model PI spec as a W3C publication 
> > (e.g., a WG Note or a W3C Recommendation).
> 
> Well, yes ISO has traditionally quite different model for 
> publication of
> standards/specifications then W3C, but fortunately things 
> have improved
> in the past. The Part 11 will be "Freely Available Standard" 
> which will be available from
> 
> http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/index.html
> 
> Is such form of publication sufficient from W3C point of 
> view, or would you require republication on W3C site?

First, there would need to be a reasonable URL--which generally
seems to be the case for these standards--but then we'd also
want an XML (with stylesheet) and/or HTML version available.

A URL to a zip of a PDF is sub-optimal and may not be acceptable
for the W3C.  We are used to having a URL that points to an HTML
document with many sub-document level anchor points so that one
can point to details of a spec, such as being able to refer to
http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-stylesheet/#NT-PseudoAtt

If ISO isn't planning to make such available, I would want the
W3C to be able to host an HTML copy--perhaps as a W3C Note or
something--to make such accessible.

Perhaps you can investigate the possibilities on your end, and
then we can discuss our options in this regard.

paul

> 
> I'm looking forward for your response.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> 			Jirka Kosek
> 		project editor of ISO/IEC 19757-11
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>   Jirka Kosek      e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz      http://xmlguru.cz
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>        Professional XML consulting and training services
>   DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>  OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>

Received on Monday, 1 June 2009 18:44:21 UTC