- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 06:46:34 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8913 Summary: Rec 1.1 authorizes schemas not to be valid schemas Product: XML Schema Version: 1.1 only Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Keywords: externalComments Severity: major Priority: P2 Component: Structures: XSD Part 1 AssignedTo: David_E3@VERIFONE.com ReportedBy: jjthomasson@free.fr QAContact: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org CC: cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com, jjthomasson@free.fr Dear members of the XSD 1.1 working group In the text of recommendation 1.1, the rules number : - 1.1 and 1.2 of section 4.2.3 - 2.1 and 2.2 of section 4.2.4 have been changed so that an included or redefined <schema> could now be not a conforming schema. By doing this, it appears that one same root element "xs:schema" could introduce both a simple "well formed XML document" and a conforming XML Schema. I'm afraid that it is : 1) introducing confusions about what is a schema and what is not. 2) transforming the original pure XML Schema logic into the traditional DTD approach where physical chunking could led to bad management of elements definitions. The original strict logic of XSD has helped some working groups to clarify the design of complex models, to rationalize the writing of those models and the organization of the sets of elements and attributes. You will find enclosed the presentation I did about the problem of physical chunking to the ASD/S1000D/EPWG (the Electronic Publication Working Group of the Association of the Aerospace and Defence Industry) at Clearwater (Florida) in 2005. If a physical chunking is necessary for the migration of some past models based on DTDs, then I suggest that a clear new element is used instead of <xs:schema> and clear new statements are used instead of <xs:include/import/redefine>. At least to avoid confusion between the past and this new approach and help the designers to choose between one or the other approach. About the new <xs:override> mechanism, I would also like to highlight the fact that the need for such a feature could be the result of some past DTD mechanisms (of course the SYSTEM ENTITY one). In terms of data modeling, I consider that it does not help at designing pure XML "hierarchical" models. Those changes in the specification dramatically change the phylosophy and logic of XML Schema and one question arises : Should XML Schema mimics the DTDS ? Do we really need a 100% functional compatibility between DTDs, XML Schema and Relax NG ? and also Schematron ? Yours sincerely and I apologize if you condiser that my vision and comment are stupid. Jean-Jacques Thomasson French translator of XML Schema Part 0 and 1. French translator of O'Reilly book "XML Schema". Author of "Schémas XML" (2002) and "Modélisation XML" (2006) at Eyrolles publishing house. -- 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 Wednesday, 10 February 2010 06:46:36 UTC