- From: Miller, Robert (GXS) <Robert.Miller@gxs.ge.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 12:49:11 -0400
- To: olken@lbl.gov, Jane Hunter <jane@dstc.edu.au>, Robert Miller <Robert.Miller@gxs.ge.com>, Don Brutzman <brutzman@nps.navy.mil>
- Cc: mpeg7-ddl <" mpeg7-ddl"@darmstadt.gmd.de>, "'www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org'" <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>, w3c-xml-schema-ig@w3.org, X3D Contributors <x3d-contributors@web3d.org>
Dear Frank,
I still care, and I do not consider XML Schema 1.0 'good enough' on this
topic.
The 1.1 option does not appear viable. I fear getting too little in 1.1,
lest 1.1 drift into 2.0. That leaves two choices, 'stop the presses' or
'later - version 2.0'.
I do not favor 'stop the presses' to add arrays to V1.0. Nor do I favor
'start the presses' unless/until the XML Schema WG can express and defend a
clear vision that does support the development of efficient standardized
arrays. It does not appear to me that the WG has reached concurrence within
the WG on this mattter.
I believe that efficiency dictates support for 'flat' vectors/slices and
support for sparse arrays.
I believe that not all array content is numeric (look at some spreadsheets),
which leads me to wonder whether the current micro-parsing capability is
viable. I worry that the <space> delimited 'list' capability in V1.0 may be
a hindrance to development of a single standardized array specification. If
we don't have arrays in V1.0, perhaps we shouldn't have lists either.
I believe that standardization requires development of a standard vocabulary
of XML elements/attributes and their semantic properties to define
arrays/vectors, and the development of basic standardized array manipulation
processes, especially those needed for import/export, and for basic
syntactic validation of array constructs.
Cheers,
Bob Miller
Received on Monday, 9 October 2000 12:55:27 UTC