Re: Response: Two more comments on "SpecLite"

Thanks again.

As for your suggestion about DoV - we will probably see what we capture in 
QA Spec and then figure out whether we need to say more.  One of the 
reasons I'm favoring a Note, is that this may be of interest to people, 
outside the scope of QA Spec.  However, we plan to solicit other opinions 
on the usefulness of DoV.

regards
Lynne


10 PM 6/18/2004 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>Correct numbers:
>
>2 required
>
>9 not recommended
>
>34 optional!
>
>(note this includes rdf:XMLLiteral as an optional, so the total should be 
>one more than the number of XML Schema builtin simple datatypes)
>
>(I have opted for "seventeen billion" rather than
>"17179869184" as the value of 2^34)
>
>
>>>[[
>>>One WG decided to use the built-in datatypes from XML Schema in their
>>>specification. However, on inspection it become clear that a few of
>>>these were inappropriate, and that some implementors thought the cost of
>>>implementing all of the rest prohibitive.
>
>Thus the WG identified: nine datatypes as not recommended,
>and two as required,
>leaving the
>other thirty-three as optional. They failed to identify subsets of the
>>>optional datatypes, leaving implementors free to choose any of the
>seventeen billion
>possible subsets. The WG never articulated the extent of this freedom,
>>>nor wondered whether interoperability would be enhanced by restricting
>>>it in a sensible manner. Until they reached PR they also failed to
>>>consider the interaction between this and the profiles that their
>>>specification included. One of these profiles extended another
>>>specification that required the implementation of one of the optional
>>>datatypes. One AC reviewer drew critical attention to the potential
>>>conflicts in the datatypes mismatch at the extension point, resulting in
>>>heated discussion in the WG and a last minute patch to the specification
>>>in the last few weeks before it went to Recommendation.
>>>]]
>
>

Received on Saturday, 19 June 2004 19:17:57 UTC