Re: (off topic) MCF and XML-data and declarations in instances

[Dan Connolly:]

| Jon, as chair,
| what do you think about comments on MCF-XML in this forum?
| 	(a) absolutely not: do it again and we file a motion to
| 		remove you from the WG
| 	(b) I'd rather they didn't, but since Tim reads the
| 		mail here, it's reaching the editors, and
| 		so no serious harm is done. But please send
| 		comments directly to the editor as a rule.
| 	(c) Only if they directly relate to xml-lang, xml-link
| 		or other specs in scope here
| 	(d) Sure! we expect mcf-xml to be reviewed in this
| 		forum eventually, so we might as well start now.

I'm going to extend your question to cover Microsoft's XML-data
proposal as well, and assume that by "this forum" we also mean the
renamed xml-ig when it goes online.

The answer has to be (c). Discussion of the metadata proposals and
convergence on a common schema apparatus is clearly the job of the
metadata activity.  The subject should arise here only to the extent
that it directly concerns the specs within the scope of the XML
activity.  Enforcing this distinction is going to be tedious, but
that's what I intend to do.

The existence of an alternative syntax that can perform the function
of an XML DTD raises some fascinating philosophical questions and will
probably engender some lively discussions somewhere, but I don't think
that this list (sgml-wg or xml-ig) is the place for it; I think that
we should be careful to stick to XML design issues or we will simply
be swept under by the volume of mail.

Beyond ruling out-of-scope discussion out of order in this list, it's
not my business to tell people where to hold this kind of debate, but
personally I think that a newsgroup such as comp.text.sgml is the
right place for it.  Mail lists like xml-dev and this one don't seem
to be as well suited to open-ended discussions.

Jon

Received on Monday, 30 June 1997 12:18:22 UTC