W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > May 2009

RE: XML Schema usage statistics (WAS: Draft minutes of 2009-05-12 TAG weekly)

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 09:50:56 -0400
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Cc: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com, cmsmcq@w3.org, "'David Ezell'" <David_E3@VERIFONE.com>, holstege@mathling.com, ian@w3.org, "'Michael Kay'" <mike@saxonica.com>, "'T.V Raman'" <raman@google.com>, sandygao@ca.ibm.com, shh@us.ibm.com, "'Tim Berners-Lee'" <timbl@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF06E51C6A.8A6542CE-ON852575BB.004B0676-852575BB.004BE3A1@lotus.com>
Larry Masinter writes:

> I would suggest (from a TAG point of view) that we consider 
> whether W3C policy and IETF policy on XML languages should be 
> any different, and, if so, why? Certainly more than 5 years
> have passed -- should the policy change?

In terms of giving advice to the community on which XML Schema language or 
languages are appropriate for various purposes, particularly on the 
Internet, I think the IETF and W3C advice should be as consistent as 
possible, and I don't think the W3C should be particularly parochial in 
favoring its own Recommendations, except on the merits.

I do think the situation between IETF and W3C is assymmetric in a 
different way: XSD is a W3C Recommendation, and so W3C has a particular 
responsibility for the maintenance and occasional enhancement of that 
specification.  That's what the working group in question is chartered to 
do, and what the CR draft has as its goals.

> To reject XML Schema at this point would be disruptive and harmful,

Thank you!  That was my main point.

> but to acknowledge other mechanisms and even (depending on 
> resources and member interest) sponsor development of 
> alternatives might be useful, if they
> can be introduced in a non-disruptive way. XML Schema and Relax
> NG seem to coexist without difficulty except for some 
> redundancy of work if you are producing both.

Absolutely.  I certainly have always tried to be fair in discussing the 
technical merits of various schema languages, pointing out that RelaxNG 
and Schematron each have clear technical (and other advantages) in various 
dimensions, and that they may be good solutions for various purposes.  I 
have no problem with W3C considering work on such languages or others if 
that seems desirable.  I strongly object to W3C being asked to stop work 
on XSD 1.1 at this time.  I also think that W3C has some ongoing 
responsibility to maintenance of XSD, though FWIW, I would propose that 
for the next few years we do only maintenance and bug fixes, not 
significant new features. 


P.S. BTW: the above are not necessarily the positions of my employer.

Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Received on Tuesday, 19 May 2009 13:49:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:28 UTC