RE: DRAFT: Response to SC 34's request to use the processing instruction target name token "xml-model"

Other than a discussion of the salutation and John's
overall approval, I've received no other comments on this.

Unless someone brings up a comment before this week's
telcon, I don't plan to discuss this further, and I
do plan to send it after this week's telcon.  

Henry, I'd particularly like to know you scanned this
before I send it.

paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Grosso, Paul
> Sent: Wednesday, 2009 April 22 14:00
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: DRAFT: Response to SC 34's request to use the 
> processing instruction target name token "xml-model"
> 
> Below is my draft response.  Once I started writing
> it, I thought of some other issues (e.g., general
> availability of the xml-model spec), so I threw
> them in.  Comments?
> 
> (Mohamed, others, any better suggestions for how best 
> to address Toshiko Kimura?  He addressed the email to
> me "Mr. Grosso".)
> 
> (As another aside, I added kimura@itscj.ipsj.or.jp to
> public-xml-core-wg@w3.org's accept2 list.)
> 
> paul
> 
> ------------------------------------------------
> 
> Eventually-To: Toshiko Kimura [mailto:kimura@itscj.ipsj.or.jp] 
> Eventually-Cc: Alex Brown; mzergaoui@innovimax.fr; jirka@kosek.cz;
> liam@w3.org
> 
> Dear Kimura-san,
> 
> 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). 
> 
> As you are aware, the XML Recommendation reserves names
> beginning with 'xml' for standardization in this or future 
> versions of this specification.  The XML Core WG feels
> any such names would need to be used by other specifications
> only in carefully specified, well-defined ways.  We are
> therefore pleased you have brought us into the discussion
> at the beginning of the process.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.  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.)
> 
> 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).
> 
> One detail the xml-model spec would have to address is the
> interaction of the xml-model PI with xsi:schemaLocation and
> similar attributes.
> 
> The XML Core WG looks forward to working together with SC 34
> to achieve a satisfactory result for all concerned.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Paul Grosso
> for the XML Core WG
> 
>

Received on Monday, 4 May 2009 14:58:49 UTC