- From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 23:43:21 -0500
- To: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@codalogic.com>
- Cc: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>, <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
On 14 May 2009, at 05:54 , Pete Cordell wrote: > 2 things... > > 1. I'm not sure if this has been proposed before (maybe by Rick [http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200812/msg00146.html > ], but I couldn't find it in the bug database), but could we include > xs:annotation elements in the xs:assert examples, e.g. do:... > I think this would be a good opportunity to show what looks like a > good best practice for defining xs:asserts. Agreed. Since the examples are non-normative, this would clearly be an editorial change and presumed unlikely to change anyone's review of the CR draft. And since adding the documentation elements would be helpful, I think it's a change we should make. Feel free to open an issue on it in Bugzilla, for tracking; if you don't, I'll just try to remember and propose it as an editorial proposal. > > 2. What's the prospect of having an <xs:doc> element defined which > is a short from of <xs:annotation><xs:documentation>?! ... Slim, I fear. Once we start fiddling with the XML transfer syntax, there is no obvious boundary to the process. And the fact that an xs:doc element will be rejected by an XSD 1.0 processor (unless the xs:doc is protected by vc:minVersion="1.1" and the 1.0 processor is retrofitted with a vc:* filter) means it's likely to be a bit of a hard sell, both within the WG and within the user community (I can already imagine the advice from books and tech evangelists to avoid using xs:doc, because 1.0 processors won't accept it -- a bit like the advice from the XML WG not to use version="1.1" if you could possibly get away with version="1.0", which would have sufficed to doom XML 1.1 even without the additional help it got). I sometimes think that in any cohesive group which wants a particular collective style in schema design (including: documentation to be encouraged by being made as easy as possible), it can be a smart thing to devise your own XML syntax for the particular kinds of schema documents you want to make it easy to write, and a simple XSLT transform to compile them to a form accepted by unextended processors. (Build the transform into your entity resolver and you may have the sensation that you have seamlessly extended the spec, in a completely conforming way. But confusion may ensue if some members of your community are unaware of the magic and disseminate docs in the customized XML syntax outside the gates.) > > I haven't submitted this formally as I'm under the impression that > XSD 1.1 is now closed for input. That's very thoughtful of you, and as someone who would like 1.1 to be finished very soon, I am personally thankful for your consideration. MSM -- **************************************************************** * C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, Black Mesa Technologies LLC * http://www.blackmesatech.com * http://cmsmcq.com/mib * http://balisage.net ****************************************************************
Received on Friday, 15 May 2009 04:43:53 UTC