Re: speech grammar spec recommends xsi:schemaLocation [namespaceDocument-8]

On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 11:06 -0500, wrote:
> Dan Connolly writes:
> > I would have thought that
> > <grammar version="1.0"
>          xmlns="">
> > was sufficient info to ground the document in the
> > web and, among other things, find the standard
> > schema.
> I think that's one way to do it, but not in all cases the best or only 
> way.

You're suggesting I said this is the only way. Please don't. I
stipulated to exceptions:
| I would think
| that schemaLocation was only useful/necessary in case the
| author meant for the document to match some more constrained
| schema.

As to the rest, it's self-fulfilling prophesy; all the more reason
for the TAG to make the grounded-in-the-web case sooner rather
than later.

>   I certainly support the convention of publishing RDDL or something 
> similar at the namespace URI, and using it when practical.   Here are some 
> of the reasons you might want to use xsi:schemaLocation in addition or 
> instead:
> * Because xsi:schemaLocation was documented in the Schema Recommendation 
> long before the community moved toward consensus on RDDL, there's a lot of 
> schema-aware software out there that knows how to use xsi:schemaLocation. 
> At least until RDDL-aware parsers become ubiquitous, using the attribute 
> seems reasonable to me.

Using the attribute for what? The schemaLocation attribute doesn't
actually contribute anything novel to the intent of the document,
does it?

Can you tell me a story about speech grammars or other documents
where including the schemaLocation attribute is useful/necessary?

If the consumer wants to schema-check a speech grammar document,
surely they know where to find the schema, no?

> * We know that for versioning and perhaps for other reasons, multiple 
> schema documents describing the same namespace may be published over a 
> period of time.

Yes, the consensus about the syntax of a language may evolve, and the
namespace document, or the things it links to, should evolve to document
this evolving consensus. I don't see how that's relevant.

If the owner of a namespace publishes or endorses *conflicting* schemas,
on purpose, for an extended period of time, surely that's
anti-social, no?

As to the HTML case, I don't think XHTML strict conflicts with XHTML
Transitional. And to the extent that they do conflict, it very
much is anti-social. The world would be better off if we could
just publish one schema for XHTML.

>   Presumably RDDL purposes or other properties can be 
> developed for designating either all of the versions that have ever been 
> published, or else the latest (if you maintain linear versioning for your 
> NS, which is common but certainly not in general required.) 

Yes, but that's rarely worthwhile. For most documents, we just update
them in place. Only for a very special few do we maintiain archival
copies of old versions. Perhaps the balance will be a bit different
for schemas, but they're not fundamentally different. It's not as though
a schema document is really all that different from a natural language
text document or a picture, when it comes to versioning issues.

> xsi:schemaLocation allows an instance document to say explicitly "this is 
> the version of the schema that was in force at the time I was written." 
> That seems useful to me.

Quite; that's the exception I stipulate to.

> Though I don't think it relates to this particular use case, there is 
> another factor relating to namespace descriptions that I think is worth 
> mentioning:
> * While we were designing the schema language, at least one vendor 
> described implementation experience with a production quality system that 
> by default dereferenced the NS URI to get a schema.  They found that in 
> many cases this was impractical, because in fact so many namespaces do not 
> have retreivable representations,

And that's where the bug is.

"A URI owner SHOULD provide representations of the resource it

If following hypertext links in the web were only 10% reliable,
rather than 94% reliable, the web would be a pretty un-interesting
place, though everybody would be, technically, conforming to all
the specs. Right now, the web of XML namespaces is profoundly boring.

>  and they could not tell in advance which 
> did and which didn't.  Network timeouts tend to be quite long on public 
> networks, and typically much longer than the time required to successfully 
> retrieve a representation (especially if that representation is cached.) 
> So, their parsers spent long periods waiting on failed connection 
> attempts.  While the same concern applies up to a point for 
> xsi:schemaLocation, at least someone is explicitly warranting that 
> retrieval is a good bet for that one.  Maybe over time high speed 
> retrievability of NS representations will become nearly universal,

Yes, the TAG should do everything it can to get that to happen soon.

>  but in 
> the meantime we've had implementation reports suggesting that one wants 
> explicit hints as to which retrievals should be attempted and which not. 

Can you argue that these hints are of long-term value to the web?
That they actually make the meaning of documents more clear?

> Noah

Dan Connolly, W3C
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2005 16:41:20 UTC