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?).

Merlin

r/reagle@w3.org/2001.09.19/17:38:42
>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.
   http://www.baltimore.com

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