W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > October to December 2000

LC-222 revamping occurrence indicators

From: Paul Cotton <pcotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:05:44 -0700
Message-ID: <E9BD05BB625E9F4CB954EAED3BD6539904962E49@tor-msg-01.northamerica.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen (E-mail)" <cmsmcq@acm.org>
Cc: W3C XML Schema Comments list <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>, "W3C XML Query WG (E-mail)" <w3c-xml-query-wg@w3.org>
Thank you for your feedback on our issue LC-222.

We are disappointed that the Schema WG did not accept our proposed change.
We accept your decision but we point out that your response does not really
give a technical rationale for the Schema WG decision.  

This is an issue which may impede alignment of Schema and Query and we will
continue to work on it.


Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada 
17 Eleanor Drive, Nepean, Ontario K2E 6A3 
Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329 

-----Original Message-----
From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen [mailto:cmsmcq@acm.org]
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 3:45 AM
To: Paul Cotton; W3C XML Query WG
Cc: W3C XML Schema Comments list
Subject: LC-222 revamping occurrence indicators

Dear Paul:

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).

Among other issues, the XML Query WG raised the point registered as
issue LC-222, which suggests that the repetition information
represented variously in DTDs by star, plus, question mark, and the
absence of any occurrence indicator be represented, both in the XML
Schema transfer syntax and on the abstract schema-component level, by
separate constructs (separate elements in the transfer syntax,
presumably separate components on the abstract level), instead of
being expressed by attributes of other elements or properties of other

As I reported to the Query WG at the face to face meeting in Hawthorne
last month, there was no consensus in the WG in favor of making this
change.  Some WG members felt it would be an improvement to the
transfer syntax (though probably not to the abstract component level);
others felt it would be detrimental to the transfer syntax.  All felt
that it would delay the spec; even some of those who felt the change
would be an improvement felt the improvement was too minor to be worth
incurring the editorial and other costs.

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 Wednesday, 11 October 2000 21:26:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:08:49 UTC