- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 00:32:37 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3754 cmsmcq@w3.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED Resolution| |LATER ------- Comment #1 from cmsmcq@w3.org 2007-05-02 00:32 ------- The XML Schema Working Group discussed this issue (Bugzilla bug 3754) at some length during a face to face meeting at the end of March. Note first that the UPA constraint of XSD 1.0 has in fact been eased somewhat by the introduction of weakened wildcards. There was some sentiment (at least one member of the WG) for going further and eliminating the Unique Particle Attribution constraint entirely, as being irrational and unhelpful. But those favoring that measure were in a distinct minority. Others felt that eliminating the constraint was too big a change for XML Schema 1.1 but that it might be worth coming back to later. Some in the WG argued that the UPA constraint does provide some help for certain kinds of tools and tool development. In this connection, it was suggested that where determinism is helpful, it would suffice for spec to require that the input/output mapping (or in other words the input / PSVI mapping) of a given complex type be deterministic; UPA is strictly stronger than such a constraint. (A non-deterministic automaton may have a deterministic mapping if each pair of competing particles will provide the same annotations in the PSVI.) Unfortunately, we don't at the moment know enough about the closure properties of finite-state automata which produce output to be confident about moving toward a constraint phrased in terms of them. In the end, the chair determined that the Working Group did not have sufficient consensus to make this change, so we agreed to close the issue without further action. Since the proposal to ease the UPA constraint had active support, we chose to give the issue a resolution of LATER, indicating that we recommend to any Working Group preparing a future version of XML Schema that they consider this issue anew. But no change will be made for XML Schema 1.1. Accordingly, I'm marking this issue RESOLVED / LATER. Dr. Rasmussen, as the originator of the issue, I ask that you update the record either by changing its status to CLOSED, to indicate that (however regretfully) you accept the disposition of the question by the XML Schema Working Group, or else by changing the status to REOPENED, to indicate that you are dissatisfied with the Working Group's response and wish to register a formal objection to the decision (which means in effect that you appeal the decision of the WG to the Director; all formal objections are reviewed by the Director of the W3C when specifications progress to certain document maturity statuses). I am sorry that the Working Group proved unable to do as you suggested, and that I (as a supporter of your view) proved unable to persuade my colleagues in the WG to take a different course of action, but I hope that you will accept the decision (for this version of XML Schema, at least!), and that you will also accept our thanks for raising the issue and allowing us to discuss it in the light of a concrete example.
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2007 00:32:41 UTC