- From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:32:11 -0600
- To: C.M.Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
- Cc: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
On 5 Mar 2009, at 18:44 , C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote: > On 26 Feb 2009, Janina Sajka sent several messages to the > www-xml-schema-comments mailing list with comments on > the XSD 1.1 Last Call working drafts. The XML Schema WG > is not meeting this week, so you won't get a formal response > from the WG until then, but in the meantime I want (in my > role as editor of the spec) to thank you very much for > your review of the specs and for your helpful comments. > > In order to make it easier to track the issues you raise, > I have made Bugzilla entries for your four comments. > The four Bugzilla entries are at: > > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6654 > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6655 > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6657 > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6658 This email is intended to inform the WAI PF WG of the disposition of your comments on XSD 1.1. Once again, on behalf of the XML Schema WG I thank you for your reading of our spec and for your comments. You made four comments. 1 (tracked as bug 6654) was understood by the XML Schema WG as a request for confirmation that nothing in the XSD notion of 'symbol spaces' conflicts with the use of the prefix 'aria-' rather than an 'aria' namespace, for the definition of ARIA attributes. There were some members of the XML Schema WG who doubted the wisdom of using such prefixes instead of using the XML namespaces mechanism, but the consensus of the WG was that you are right in believing there is no conflict. 2 (tracked as bug 6655): you expressed concern about the statement in XSD 1.1 that schema processors should provide user control over whether and how schemaLocation hints are actually dereferenced. The XML Schema WG added a note to the spec, whose text is given at http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6655#c2, to try to clarify expectations in this area. 3 (tracked as bug 6657) You noted that the type hierarchy diagram in the Datatypes spec lacked a long description. (You also said you thought the new graphic was helpful, for which I personally thank you.) A new long description has been added (both via the longdesc attribute of the img element and via a text link in the image caption). The result can be inspected in the status-quo version of the XSD 1.1 Datatypes spec at http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-2/datatypes.html#built-in-datatypes (W3C member-only link) The XML Schema WG believes that this change resolves issue 6657, but comments on the style of the long description remain fervently desired. 4 (tracked as bug 6658) you express satisfaction with the new dateTimeStamp datatype. To which the XML Schema WG can only respond "thank you". With the changes to the XSD 1.1 spec outlined above and described in more detail in the relevant Bugzilla entries, the XML Schema WG believes that all four of your comments have been satisfactorily resolved. Please let us know if you agree with this resolution of your issues, either by commenting in Bugzilla or by replying to this email. If we don't hear from you in the next ten days or so, we will assume that you are satisified with our disposition of your issues. best regards, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen -- **************************************************************** * C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, Black Mesa Technologies LLC * http://www.blackmesatech.com * http://cmsmcq.com/mib * http://balisage.net ****************************************************************
Received on Saturday, 18 April 2009 04:32:51 UTC