Re: Poll (Was: Question for Implementors (Was: Schema Validation Transform))

If delays would otherwise be incurred, I would vote for
moving the two new transforms to the auxillary algorithms
draft and clarifying in the spec how implicit parsing
should be performed (well formed?).


>The immediate question facing us then is what to do with these parts of the 
>spec in the mean time? Please send your response (particularly from 
>implementors) by the end this week. Should we:
>1. Retain the sections [3] as is and wait for interop.
>2. Retain the sections  [3]in a modified form and argue they are merely 
>INFORMATIONAL. Neither transform requires much by way of a specified 
>feature. If we eliminated the porting of a schema as a child of the 
><Transform Algorithm="&schema;"/>, all we are doing is agreeing upon the 
>algorithm URI, and repeating what the XML and schema inputs/outputs to the 
>vaidation are from their own specs.
>2. Remove the sections (but continue to leave hints that schema and XML 
>validation should be treated as transforms).
>4. Remove the sections and place them in the Auxillary Algorithms draft?
>Whatever we do, we *might* have to bounce back down to a last call or CR 
>before going to REC for a few weeks, but I'm less concerned with that then 
>getting consensus on a good decision on our options above.

Baltimore Technologies plc will not be liable for direct,  special,  indirect 
or consequential  damages  arising  from  alteration of  the contents of this
message by a third party or as a result of any virus being passed on.

In addition, certain Marketing collateral may be added from time to time to
promote Baltimore Technologies products, services, Global e-Security or
appearance at trade shows and conferences.

This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by
Baltimore MIMEsweeper for Content Security threats, including
computer viruses.

Received on Thursday, 27 September 2001 09:39:56 UTC