- From: Kasimier Buchcik <kbuchcik@4commerce.de>
- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:16:32 +0200
- To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: XML-SCHEMA <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>, Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
Hi, On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 16:00 +0100, Henry S. Thompson wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Thanks for this clear and succinct statement of the situation, which I > think the XML Schema WG should take into consideration as it tries to > clarify the whole schema composition story for XML Schema 1.1. [...] Is there an effort scheduled to clarify redefinitions for XML Schema 1.0 as well? I'm currently unsure if the fact that nobody clarified the test results yet (which you can find at the beginning of this thread), means that the people who actually can comment this issue are still on holiday or at meetings, or if this means that they will not comment it, for whatever reasons. Please let me know if and how this issue was noticed by the WG. I don't intend to apply any pressure, but need to know if it is reasonable to suspend the implementation of redefinitions on my side, in order to try to find out what a schema processor _should_ do here. What to do if the WG will not clarify the problems I see with redefinitions? Are implementations then free to implement it in a way they think is suitable? Does this mean that we have another official area of implementation-dependant behaviour here? Regards, Kasimier
Received on Friday, 19 August 2005 09:20:28 UTC