Re: Issue 225: accommodating non-XML data models (proposal)

+1 from me too.

It would be good if we can accommodate this with limited amount of 
changes but,
I am afraid that the proposed changes make things vague and hard to 
understand and use
for >= 80% use cases that would model things as XML infosets.

For example going form "Element" (GED) to "content". I clearly 
understand "element declaration" but,
"content declaration" is very generic and could really mean anything. 
When we are making the change we
can relate to things but, when someone needs to read the spec  w/o such 
background later and interpret / understand
to implement, I think one would be in a very disadvantageous position.

I would be for this, if we were to fix things to be more clear (if we 
had the time) but making simple fixes
that render things vague is not desirable IMO.

Regards, Prasad


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: Issue 225: accommodating non-XML data models (proposal)
Resent-Date: 	Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:52:23 -0400 (EDT)
Resent-From: 	www-ws-desc@w3.org
Date: 	Wed, 16 Jun 2004 19:53:31 +0600
From: 	Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
To: 	Tom Jordahl <tomj@macromedia.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
References: 
<CB1FF0A474AEA84EA0206D5B05F6A4CB0875DA6E@S1001EXM02.macromedia.com>


ARGH! Major +1 to Tom .. don't fix what ain't broken.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Jordahl" <tomj@macromedia.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 7:37 PM
Subject: RE: Issue 225: accommodating non-XML data models (proposal)


>
> Mark wrote:
> > 4) Throughout - Change instances of "element declaration" to "content
> > declaration", the {element} property to {content}, and instances of the
> > "element" Attribute Information Item to "content".
>
> Amy wrote in response:
> > Hmm.  13 instances of "{element}", 27 of "element declaration".  Harder
to
> > count instances of "element" attribute information item.  But this AII
is
> > associated with XML Schema, is it not?  Do we *really* need to change
it?
> > Again?  The element AII appears in faults and in messages.  In messages,
>
> I would not be in favor of resolving issue 225 by make the kind of change
> that Mark is proposing.  It strikes me that this could have a major ripple
> effect throughout the specification at a very bad time.
>
> It also seems that changes like these make the spec much more obscure for
a
> use case that has not been proven to be a requirement.  Didn't we (or the
> architecture working group) define a Web Service to specifically include
> XML?
>
> --
> Tom Jordahl
> Macromedia Server Development
>