- From: Jon Bosak <bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM>
- Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 11:59:30 -0700
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
The SGML ERB met today and decided to proceed on the "SD" questions posted last week as described below. Please note that time constraints and the need to firm up the xml-link spec figured heavily in making these decisions. The ERB has concluded (rather sadly) that it will have to start meeting twice a week again to get through the issues that need to be addressed in order to have new xml-lang and xml-link drafts out on July 1, so your cooperation in focusing email discussions on the questions determined to be of the highest priority will be greatly appreciated. SD1 - Short End Tags Finding: This is a religious issue that we can't resolve in the XML 1.0 time frame. A great deal of discussion went into this question early in the design of the language, and the case made for changing this basic feature over the last week has not proven persuasive. Action: Take any further discussion of this issue elsewhere (for example, comp.text.sgml). SD2 - Structured Attributes Finding: The goal for this request needs to be stated more clearly. Jean Paoli has agreed to formulate another statement of what needs to be accomplished here. Action: Suspend discussion of this question pending receipt of Jean's clarification. SD3 - Data Types Finding: We discussed this issue at length based on input received from the WG. We agree that there is a real need here and we are hopeful that we can find a solution that will solve the majority of the most important user requirements in this area. Steve DeRose has taken an action to formulate and post a straw proposal based on a direction that seems promising. Action: Suspend discussion of this question pending receipt of Steve's proposal. SD4 - Schema Format Finding: This question in a related form nearly destroyed the XML effort back in September. The political climate has changed somewhat since then, but several of us feel strongly that an architectural issue of this magnitude has to be undertaken in cooperation with WG8 and is way too big to tackle in the 1.0 time frame. However, we are also hearing that this could be a make-or-break feature for some other W3C activities that are considering XML as their data format. Action: We will check with the leaders of the related W3C activities and with the W3C Coordination Group responsible for XML liaison within the W3C to better understand the requirements before proceeding any further with this. Please suspend discussion of this question until we have a clearer understanding of the situation. SD5 - Namespaces Finding: This one is very difficult, but we are agreed that it is the most important xml-lang question facing us in the near term. We have not yet opened up discussion of the details in the ERB. Action: Please focus on this question and on the current xml-link issues as top priorities for the time being. Jon
Received on Wednesday, 21 May 1997 15:00:50 UTC