- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 23:10:02 -0400
- To: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Rick, you imply that the Note produced by the databindings WG calls for subsetting of XSD. Consistent with the summary of their mandate that I gave in an earlier email, it does not. Quoting from the introduction [1], constraining XSD in that way is an explicit nongoal: "This specification provides a basic set of example [XML Schema 1.0] constructs and types in the form of concrete [XPath 2.0] expressions. These patterns are known to work well with state of the art databinding implementations. "Authors of [XML Schema 1.0] documents may find these patterns useful in providing a better user experience for consumers of their schemata using databinding tools. Whilst it is not possible to guarantee that schemata produced using these patterns will give a good user experience with the universal set of databinding tools, the patterns contained in this specification have been all been tested with a number of different tools covering a variety of different programming languages and environments. "Implementers of databinding tools may find these patterns useful to represent simple and common place data structures. Ensuring tools recognize at least these simple [XML Schema 1.0] patterns and present them in terms most appropriate to the specific language, database or environment will provide an improved user experience when using databinding tools. >>>It is inappropriate to use this specification to constrain implementation of the [XML Schema 1.0] Recommendation.<<< [Emphasis mine...Noah]" So, as I described earlier, this note provides a listing of patterns that were known at the time to work particularly well with then available databinding tools. This note was positioned as a recommendation, not to those who would subset future versions of the XSD Recommendation, but to those would be building databinding and other tools in the future. The XSD working group did not act on this as an instruction to subset XSD, in my opinion, in part because it explicitly is not intended for that purpose. As others have noted, the Charter of the XML Schema Working group in the period in question did not call for producing such a subset. Noah [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/NOTE-xmlschema-patterns-20090505/#Introduction -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 -------------------------------------- Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au> Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org 05/29/2009 06:42 AM To: www-tag@w3.org cc: (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM) Subject: Re: Five mechanical approaches to make an XSD profile without getting bogged by individual issues Henry S. Thompson wrote: > It lead to the creation of the XML Schema Patterns for Databinding > Working Group [1]. > > That group published a number of drafts of specifications called _Basic > XML Schema Patterns for Databinding Version 1.0_ [2] and _Advanced XML > Schema Patterns for Databinding_ 1.0 [3], and then ran out of > committed person-power and closed. > Actually, they are now out as Group Notes. http://www.w3.org/TR/#Notes Do you see that this looks like making it someone else's problem, then ignoring the result? I may have missed it, but in what way did the XSD WG use these notes or drafts? Surely since it came out of an XSD WG workshop, I would imagine that the XSD WG would have considered themselves the primary users of such an effort, and they would have tried to fold the emerging results of the draft into XSD 1.1 at every opportunity. Cheers Rick Jelliffe
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2009 03:10:44 UTC