- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 02 Jun 2000 14:16:40 +0100
- To: "Mabry, F. DR EECS" <df6954@exmail.usma.army.mil>
- Cc: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Thanks for the typos etc., which will be attended to during the next rewrite. I'll pass over the date question, and address the conformance question briefly: "Mabry, F. DR EECS" <df6954@exmail.usma.army.mil> writes: > [quote from conformance section elided] > Should there be consideration given to the development of a way to represent > (and communicate) an alternative process for the acceptance of additional > XML documents with a representation of datatype definitions and the > (subsequent) generation of a new optimised binary representation, > dynamically created schema represented as a programming language data > structure, or an implementation in which the particular schema is compiled > into executable code? It is likely that there will be some automatic or > semi-automatic process for generating the alternative representation in most > systems. Should the notion of a level or type of conformance be addressed? > A datatype processor that provides an automated means to generate a more > efficient representation but which allows completely automatic extension or > change is really resulting in the same outcome as the second definition (for > conformance to the XML Representation of Schemas) in section 6. My personal view is that on the one hand standardising such a story in any detail would be premature, while on the other hand the definition of layer 1 conformance specifically allows for it to happen _without_ having to revise the spec. ht -- Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
Received on Friday, 2 June 2000 09:16:51 UTC