- From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 17:50:46 +0200
- To: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>
- CC: liam@w3.org, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
On 10/10/2013 11:30, Jirka Kosek wrote: > On 10.10.2013 8:52, Daniel Dardailler wrote: >> Let me check on this one. Last I heard, it was mostly about a change of >> stylesheet, after 5 years. > Maybe, it's hard to keep up with the latest JTC1 directives if you have > only one life :-) I'm told there is more flexibility than before at that level in particular. > >> (it may be more that just styling, but I'd expect it to be an automatic >> process of some kind, and since we may submit new revision/version >> before 5 years, it may be a moot point anyway) > I wouldn't count with new version of XML Schema in 5 years. XML Schema > WG has been closed, there is no new work undergoing. Errata may be enough but that's not my point. The "final" transposition would be editorial in nature. > >>> 3) XML Schema Recommendation is written in a unnecessary complex way. >>> There is a risk that some national bodies will raise comments against >>> this during PAS process. With an assumption that W3C doesn't want >>> retroactively change XML Schema 1.1 spec and doesn't want misaligned ISO >>> version this could lead to PAS voting failure. This probably will not be >>> a very good marketing for XML Schema. >> I don't think that this would be a matter of concern, it's more a >> political vote (see above). > Be sure that some national bodies will send technical comments and they > have to be dealt with in process. The process for PAS is simple: Yes or No vote, with comments that we have to reply to, even if we get 100% yes (which is what we had so far for Web Services and WCAG). At any point in the ballot, we can decide to withdraw the candidate. > >> This section would seem to apply to all our PAS efforts, not just XML >> Schema, so this is not really the right forum to discuss it (for those >> of you who have member access, you can look at >> https://www.w3.org/2010/07/potential-pas.html). > I don't see any discussion possibility on this page. That's not what I meant. The right forum to discuss the value of PAS (not wrt XMLS) is the AC forum I suppose. This document just presents the reasons for doing it and some criteria to apply before doing it. > > Jirka > >
Received on Thursday, 10 October 2013 15:51:15 UTC