Re: XML Schema 1.1: Open Issues?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Bjoern Hoehrmann writes:

> http://w3.org/XML/Schema does not even note publication of this
> draft.

Fixed, thanks.

> Regarding my earlier XML Schema 1.1 issue,
>
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2006JanMar/0045.html
>
> I was not able to find the response that formally addresses this issue
> in my inbox, the list archive, or Bugzilla. Where can I find publicly
> archived evidence that the Working Group formally addressed this issue?
>
> Regarding older comments I have some interest in,
>
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlschema-dev/2001Oct/0219.html
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2002OctDec/0084.html
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2002OctDec/0096.html
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2004AprJun/0084.html
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2005OctDec/0212.html
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2005OctDec/0213.html
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2006JanMar/0133.html
>
> The issues is simply that it's not clear how QNames without a prefix are
> to be interpreted. This issue has been raised on the XML Schema Part 2
> REC, PER, XML Schema 1.1 Part 2 WD, along with numerous requests to
> finally make the normative corrections to XML Schema Part 2 that have
> been repeatedly promised by the Working Group. Looking at the Last Call
> draft, it seems this issue has still not been addressed, and I could not
> find responses that formally address any of the issues mentioned above
> in a meaningful way. Regardless of whether this is still an issue for
> the last call draft, it's not really acceptable to not address the issue
> for more than 4 1/2 years now. As I've said before.
>
> Another issues that still has not been addressed and still is an issue
> for the Last Call draft is
>
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2004OctDec/0014.html
>
> Again, nothing has been done about this issue, and the Last Call draft
> has exactly the same conformance and inaccessibility problem the REC had
> before it.
>
> Looking further at the SotD section of the document, I see there is
> a link to http://www.w3.org/XML/2006/01/public-bugzilla to explain
> Bugzilla issue tracking. The document is not even well-formed XML

Fixed.

> appears to discuss issue tracking for other Working Groups, for example,
> the "pre-prepared" links don't show XML Schema issues.

Fixed.

>In
>
>   http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?bug_status=__open__&product=XML+Schema
>
> I then found 244 open issues on XML Schema, more than 230 of these were
> opened before the Last Call announcement. It seems that some issues
> might have been resolved and the issue tracker hasn't been updated,
> while other issues are still open. It is not clear to me how this could
> have happened during the preparation of the Last Call announcement.

The Bugzilla entries for XML Schema cover all three parts of the spec
(Primer, Structures and Datatypes) and also both 1.0 candidate errata
as well as 1.1 candidate features.  Only Part 2 (Datatypes) has
advanced to last call at the moment.  You can use Advanced Search to
restrict what you see to only comments relevant to the recenly
pubished Part 2 Last Call WD [1].  

> Regarding my earlier XML Schema 1.1 issue,
>
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2006JanMar/0045.html

The is entered as bug 2075 [2].

> The next note in the SotD is
>
>   The end of the Last Call review period is 31 March 2006; comments
>   received after that date will be considered if time allows, but no
>   guarantees can be offered.
>
> It is not clear to me what this means.

It means just what specifying a Last Call review period always means
- -- comments received after 31 March 2006 may not be addressed in the
next version of this document to be published.  That's all.

ht

[1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&product=XML+Schema&component=Datatypes%3A+XSD+Part+2&version=1.0%2F1.1+both&version=1.1+only&version=unspecified&long_desc_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr&status_whiteboard=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&emailtype1=substring&email1=&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=
[2] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2075
- -- 
 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                   URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEC63akjnJixAXWBoRAjZKAJ9RrTvcm6/gw5U2zvsJ0+BNDDeYmACfTqLD
r6B/RAJc3dC/8extKupkFYk=
=LRrs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Monday, 6 March 2006 03:34:56 UTC