- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 00:38:15 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3076 cmsmcq@w3.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Keywords| |unclassified ------- Comment #1 from cmsmcq@w3.org 2006-09-09 00:38 ------- Apologies for the very slow response. Can you expand on this idea a bit? What kind of thing do you have in mind? The definition of technical terms so that other specs can say "The processors we are defining must conform to XML Schema 1.1 with the XML-1.1-datatypes option", or "... with either the XML-1.0-datatypes or the XML-1.1-datatypes option ..." and so on? Or did you have in mind something different? And, at another level (I am speaking for myself here, not the WG), can you describe the rationale for this idea a bit? I have been coming to believe that specs should normally NOT restrict their conforming processors to specific versions of other specs. They may in some cases usefully require that a particular version be supported, but I am becoming less and less enchanted with the idea of forbidding an implementation of specification X from supporting newer versions of specification Y. Perhaps I am influenced by the belief that some Web Services Working Groups have declined to support XML 1.1 in their specs, on the grounds that they are using XML Schema 1.0 and it REQUIRES that they support only XML 1.0. Even typical ISO specs are not that restrictive in their normative references. User profiles and agreements, on the other hand, clearly do need to be able to nail down versions of various specs to be accepted; perhaps it's that kind of thing you have in mind? In any case, thank you for the comment. (I should note, in closing, that this response is from me as an individual, not on behalf of the XML Schema Working Group.)
Received on Saturday, 9 September 2006 00:38:32 UTC