For the record: response on LC-102 microparsing: Suggestion: Micr oparsing support in XML Schema

The following note was sent to the commentator on
October 5, 2000.  The orginal response to this issue was sent on July 12, 2000
and can be found at the following address.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2000OctDec/0112.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	David Ezell 
> Sent:	Thursday, October 05, 2000 3:32 PM
> To:	'anderst@toolsmiths.se'
> Cc:	w3c-xml-schema-ig@w3.org
> Subject:	Re: LC-102 microparsing: Suggestion: Microparsing support in XML
> Schema
> 
> On Mon 7/10/2000 7:13 PM -4:00 David Ezell wrote:
> > My suggestion is that for version 1, the semantics of both XPath and
> > the SVG path EII are the responsibility of those processors which
> > use them, e.g. XSLT, etc.  Hopefully this will not be a great
> > burden in the meantime, and we can begin work on version 2.
> >
> > Please let me hear from you as to whether you consider this proposition
> > acceptable.
> complete text:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2000Jul/0130.html
> 
> On Thu 8/17/2000 12:00 PM -4:00 Anders W. Tell wrote:
> >I think there are two issues here, the first one is the mechanism of
> >associating
> >equivalent XML schema component and a parser identifier with simpleTypes
> >the second is what should the schema component be for xpaths, SVG paths
> >etc. be.
> >The first one could easily fit into version 1 and the second in version 2
> 
> Dear Mr. Tell:
> Over the past few weeks the XML Schema WG has been working on the mechanism
> for
> identifying individual schema components.  If I understand your statement
> about
> associating schema components and parser identifiers with simpleTypes (I'm not
> sure that I do) it seems as though a resolution to this naming problem is
> required
> before we can move on to consider your suggestions.  Our difficulty is that a
> complete
> identification mechanism is beyond our scope until v2.  We do feel that we
> have
> an adequate "bridge mechanism" which will suffice until we can give the matter
> more
> thorough discussion.
> 
> On that basis, I'd offer that the current decision of the WG is to wait until
> version 2 to begin any further discussion on the matter.  I hope this decision
> is
> OK with you, and that you understand the complexity involved, and that we are
> working
> on the underpinnings of a solution for version 2.
> 
> Given all that, we'd like to know how you feel about the issue.
> 
> Please choose from one of the following responses, adding 
> whatever details, explanation you wish:
> 
> 1)  "GOOD ENOUGH"  - You are satisfied with the Schema WG response
> to your comments on XML Schema Language.  The response meets 
> your requirements.  The matter may be considered resolved.
> 
> 2) "STOP THE PRESSES"  - You are not happy with the response
> to your comments on XML Schema Language.  Either the response
> is unclear or inadequate.  The issue is of sufficient importance
> and urgency that you want it called to the attention of the 
> W3C Executive Director and you ask that the XML Schema Language 
> delayed in advancing to Candidate Recommendation until the 
> issue is resolved. 
> 
> 3)  "LATER - VERSION 1.1"  - You are not happy with the response,
> but are prepared to defer reconsideration until XML Schema Lang.
> Version 1.1 is drafted.  It is anticipated (hoped) that Version 1.1
> will be completed by mid-2001.  Version 1.1 is intended primarily
> to fix small issues needed by other W3C Working Groups to proceed 
> with their work (especially XML Query Language).  You request that
> your comments be reconsidered when drafting the Version 1.1 
> requirements document.
> 
> 4) "LATER - VERSION 2.0"  - You are not happy with the response,
> but are prepared to defer consideration until XML Schema Language
> Version 2.0 is drafted.  It is anticipated that Version 2.0 would
> not be completed until late 2001 or early 2002.  Version 2.0 may
> include major revisions, e.g., multiple inheritance, etc.
> You request that your comments be reconsidered when drafting the 
> Version 2.0 requirements document.
> 
> 5) "NO LONGER CARE"  - You are not happy with the response, but
> no longer care to pursue the matter, because ....
> 
> Best regards,
> David Ezell, Hewlett Packard Company
> On behalf of the XML Schema WG
> 
>

Received on Monday, 9 October 2000 09:05:22 UTC