- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 16:26:25 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5862 David Ezell <David_E3@VERIFONE.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |David_E3@VERIFONE.com Status|NEW |RESOLVED Keywords| |resolved Resolution| |WORKSFORME --- Comment #1 from David Ezell <David_E3@VERIFONE.com> 2008-08-04 16:26:25 --- On 2008-08-01 the WG reviewed the request from Mr. Coates and decided not to take any action other than to close this item as "works for me". Following is the rationale for that decision. Point 1 - the actual request for this bug entry is "please retain redefine as well as override." Since the WG is deprecating redefine but not removing it, then strictly speaking the WG is retaining redefine. It will be up to some future working group at some future time to decide whether to eliminate redefine in some future revision; in no way does the deprecated label force a decision on such a future working group. So from a very precise point of view, the WG is already complying with the commenter's request -- hence the WORKSFORME classification. Point 2 - the WG has struggled with redefine and how it fits into schema composition. XML Schema 1.1 notably (at least at this point) does >not< address composition - the story is the essentially the same as with 1.0. Designating redefine as "deprecated" is in part a signal that future work should address composition and redefine in particular. Point 3 - the WG (as a group) was unwilling to extend the rec to include xs:override without some compensating measure with regard to redefine. Hence the "deprecated" label. The WG hopes that commenter can understand that this issue is a difficult one, and that we believe that the status quo is the best possible outcome at this time. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 4 August 2008 16:26:59 UTC