- From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 18:37:06 -0600
- To: Daniel Veillard <Daniel.Veillard@w3.org>
- Cc: W3C XML Schema Comments list <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
Dear Daniel: 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 (http://www.w3.org/2000/05/12-xmlschema-lcissues). According to our issues management system, you raised the point registered as issue LC-186, which suggests that some mechanism be provided for allowing attribute remapping (or, more generally, for allowing names from other namespaces to be 'naturalized' by being associated with names in the local namespace). The WG discussed this topic at some length, and considered several possible approaches; in the end, the WG decided not to add this feature to version 1.0, though it may be a good topic to consider for future versions of XML Schema. Some members of the WG felt that the underlying problem raised by your note is the same problem which 'architectural forms' attempt to solve. (Some also felt that the problem reflects a fundamental design error in the Namespaces in XML recommendation, but that is not a consensus view within the WG.) One possible solution, therefore, which requires no changes to XML or to XML Schema, is simply to use architectural forms as they are defined by the relevant ISO standards and implemented by existing software. With regard to element types, the substitution-group mechanism of XML Schema can be used to define equivalences of the kind needed (I define an element in my namespace as being in the substitution group of an element in some other namespace). Some WG members were in favor of extending the substitution-group mechanism to attributes, but this seemed to the majority to be a change better left for later versions of the specification. In the context of XML Linking, the WG reached the conclusion that in fact a better solution to the problem is for applications to recognize XPointers on the basis of their datatype, rather than solely on the basis of their name. The upshot is that there appear to be mechanisms already available (architectures and simple types) to solve the basic problem. So the WG decided against adding a new mechanism to the spec in order to provide yet another method to solve it. 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. with best regards, -C. M. Sperberg-McQueen World Wide Web Consortium Co-chair, W3C XML Schema WG
Received on Monday, 9 October 2000 14:39:04 UTC