W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > November 2002

RE: proposed TAG issue: future web architecture

From: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:00:57 -0800
Message-ID: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F8040EF7BF@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <Svgdeveloper@aol.com>, <M.D.Wilson@rl.ac.uk>, <www-tag@w3.org>

I have several thoughts as to how the W3C XML Schema recommendation could have been modularized (hindisight is 20/20) and probably split into four parts (datatypes, structures, derivation and identity constraints) but requesting that now is effectively asking to rewrite the spec from scratch. However the W3C doesn't seem averse to making radical changes in 2.0 versions as is seen with XHTML 2.0 and XPath 2.0 so this may not be unreasonable. 
However, I'd really like to hear concrete examples of what kind of modularity is desirable instead of unbacked claims of  inadequacy in the recommendation. 
As an afterthought, extensibility is also an area where the W3C XML Schema recommendation is somewhat lacking. 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Svgdeveloper@aol.com [mailto:Svgdeveloper@aol.com] 
	Sent: Wed 11/20/2002 8:41 AM 
	To: M.D.Wilson@rl.ac.uk; www-tag@w3.org 
	Subject: Re: proposed TAG issue: future web architecture
	In a message dated 19/11/2002 20:24:59 GMT Standard Time, M.D.Wilson@rl.ac.uk writes:

		TAG members
		It was stated at the AC meeting today that the TAG wanted to hear requests
		from AC memebers of issues to address. The issues I would like to see
		addressed all group as the future web architecture:
		what is the current modular structure of the W3C recommendations and their
		interactions ?

	Professor Wilson,
	One issue which many in the XML community are concerned about is the design of W3C XML Schema which seems, to at least several of us, to be inadequately modular and to impact adversely on interoperability.
	W3C XML Schema has caused a significant amount of hostility in parts of the XML community due to its imposition in other specifications. This process, which I tactlessly refer to as "schema fascism", is unsatisfactory and unwelcome. If W3C XML Schema were fully modular the adverse effects would be substantially alleviated.
	I would therefore request the TAG and AC to review how W3C XML Schema can be improved so that it is fully modular.
	I am aware that version 1.1 of W3C XML Schema is under consideration but, to the best of my knowledge, version 1.1 is unlikely fully to address the deficiencies of and problems caused by W3C XML Schema 1.0. I have in mind a much more fundamental review which examines how W3C XML Schema can be made truly modular.
	I hope that the TAG and the AC have the vision to approach this suggestion with vigour.
	Andrew Watt
	"XHTML 2.0 - the W3C leading the Web to its full potential ... to implement yesterday's technology tomorrow" 
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2002 12:02:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:55 UTC