- From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>
- Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 04:40:51 +1000
- To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
- CC: www-tag@w3.org, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote: > Rick, > > A minute ago I commented on this thread as someone who has been active in > the development of XML Schema. Here I speak as TAG chair. > Thanks for those kind words. It is very difficult to make these kind of comments without seeming strident or opinionated or insulting, and I hope none of these are true. > Rich Jelliffe writes: > > >> The appropriate channel for escalation in this case, as I understand >> it, is the TAG. >> > > In short, I'm not convinced that's formally true, but I'm certainly glad > to try and get the TAG to play a constructive role, particularly if other > TAG members are inclined to engage in this issue. I believe the process > requires that the TAG vote on whether to undertake this as an issue, and I > will schedule the appropriate vote shortly. > All I can do is try. And I appreciate that this comes at perhaps a strange time near the end of a very lengthy development effort. But if not now, when? > In more detail, I think the pertinent issues with respect to W3C process > are: > > * A W3C Working Group has taken a draft specification to Candidate > Recommendation status. You as a member of the community have expressed a > concern that I would summarize as: the design is deeply flawed and should > not go forward as a W3C Recommendation. > Yes, as long as "design" is not understood merely as "components and outcomes". The flaw is one of failing to meet what I sumbit are probably minimum standard or core requirements. My belief is that this comes from imposing on all schemas an inappropriately grandiose theoretical mechanism (complex type derivation) that remains perfectly useable for at least a significant niche of potential users. However, the XSD WG has not considered a type-derivation-free, relaxed version of schemas, nor would it do so off its own bat. (In fact it will not consider any subsetting or simplification ideas at all, apart from simplifying rules that are so complex that even those who can work with XSD cannot use them.) And my solution is layering and a relaxed, broader, simpler, derivation-free layer suitable for simple use, syntactically compatible with XSD to the greatest extent. Build XSD 1.1 on top of that. However, it may be that the TAG could decide that XSD 1.0 has, in the light of experience, proved itself deeply flawed and failing to meet core requirements, and that the program of word or the dynamics of the the XSD WG need to be electro-shocked into a more useful state, without formally recommend my particular solution. I don't think anyone has come up with a better solution, but the XSD WG has clearly not tried. (However, RELAX NG, whose semantics I suggest would be appropriate as the new core, with modified XSD-namespace syntax, is well thought out, implemented, standardized and has more complete theoretical characterization than XSD. So it should not be thought I am suggesting a whole new development effort or branching out into the unknown. You could perhaps see my plan as making RELAX NG the simple base schema language, then using it to simplify the XSD 1.n specification, retaining the XSD syntax as much as possible. For example, the core would follow RELAX NG in only allowing cardinality of 0, 1 or unbounded, but it would still express this using XSD's minOccurs and maxOccurs.) > * The normal W3C Process involves processing of comments by the schemas > working group. There are two problems with this. The minor one is that I think the time for public comment is over. The major one is that the WG had already decided it would not address the issues I have re-raised and did XSD 1.1 instead, as Michael wrote. And the public comments to the WG on XSD 1.1 could only in practice address specific issues, not the broad picture. So I believe it is utterly useful to attempt to use the XSD WG to raise this issue. > Sorry for all the process stuff, but since you said that the TAG is the > appropriate channel for escalation, I thought it was worth rechecking the > groundrules. > > No, I am grateful to you for responding. It am aware that it must cheese off everyone on the WG who has been diligently working on 1.1 for so long with such little result or public warmth. I get nice comments about Schematron all the time: I don't think I have ever had a nasty one. Murata seems pretty happy with feedback on RELAX NG too. Public frustration is not part of the territory for schema languages that schema standards committee people must lump, or acclimatize themselves to, it is a sign that something is amiss. > Here's my net: Rick has, at least informally, asked the TAG to consider > his concerns with XML Schema. Consistent with all the process stuff > quoted above, I hereby ask the TAG to consider whether it wishes to > undertake work on this issue, and if so how to prioritize relative other > things. I will take the appropriate vote on an upcoming teleconference. > If the TAG decides not to get involved at this time, then there is also > the opportunity for Tim to ask the TAG's advice during the approval > process for XSD 1.1. > Thanks Noah. Please consider it formally asked, if I have that privilege as a member of the public. Cheers Rick Jelliffe
Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2009 18:41:38 UTC