- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 06 Oct 2000 22:51:26 +0100
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
The W3C XML Schema Working Group has spent the last several months working through the comments received from the public on the last-call draft of the XML Schema specification. We thank you for the comments you made on our specification during our last-call comment period, and want to make sure you know that all comments received during the last-call comment period have been recorded in our last-call issues list [1]. In a message to the XML Schema comments list on 11 May [2] you requested the WG to make names of elements, types etc. be IDs, and be called 'id'. The WG considered this issue at some length in both face-to-face meetings and email and teleconference discussions, and have taken your advice, partly: 1) All element types defined by XML Schema admit 'id' as an attribute with type ID; 2) All declarations of element types, simple types and facets intended for public use in the XML Schema for schema documents have such an 'id' attribute, giving their name; 3) However, the 'id' attribute is not required, and is not the name of the item. For example: <element name="attribute" substitutionGroup="schemaTop" type="topLevelAttribute" id="attribute"> <annotation> <documentation source="http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#element-attribute"/> </annotation> </element> <simpleType name="recurringDay" id="recurringDay"> <restriction base="recurringDuration"> <duration value="P24H" fixed="true"/> <period value="P1M" fixed="true"/> </restriction> </simpleType> enabling references of the form http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema#attribute http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema#recurringDay Rationale: We declined to adopt the final part of your request, per (3) above, because the impact on usability in the context of a design with six nameable but clearly distinct kinds of components (type definitions, element declarations, attribute declarations, attribute group definitions, model group definitions, notation declarations) of forbidding name collisions between these different kinds of things would be too great. In particular, it would have directly contradicted the requirement that we reconstruct the facilities of DTDs insofar as possible. We recognise that this resolution although it addresses most of your concern in practice as far as the XML Schema for schemas goes, is not in principle complete, and are committed to a long-term solution which does make all schema components of any schema however defined _ipso facto_ addressable. It would be helpful to us to know whether you are satisfied with the decision taken by the WG on this issue, or wish your dissent from the WG's decision to be recorded for consideration by the Director of the W3C. ht [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/05/12-xmlschema-lcissues [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2000AprJun/0167.html -- 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, 6 October 2000 17:51:30 UTC