W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > July 2005

Re: chairs' summary of XML Schema User Experiences workshop

From: Daniel Veillard <daniel@veillard.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 00:16:39 +0200
To: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>
Cc: Michael Champion <mcham@microsoft.com>, XML Schema developers list <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20050712221639.GB29991@daniel.veillard.com>

On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 02:34:58PM -0700, Michael Champion wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org
> [mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org]
> > On Behalf Of C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 12:27 PM
> > To: XML Schema developers list
> > Subject: chairs' summary of XML Schema User Experiences workshop
> > 
> > http://www.w3.org/2005/06/21-schema-workshop/chairs-report.html
> >From what I understand from talking to participants and reading the
> minutes, "only weak support, however, for proposals to drop XML Schema
> 1.1 from the Working Group's task list" is somewhat backwards.  There
> was only weak support for finishing XML 1.1 according to the table in
> the minutes. (11 people thought it was something W3C should do, compared
> to 23 who wanted a focus on errata, 22 who wanted a focus on a test
> suite, 21 who wanted the Wiki).  Similarly, 18 participants said they
> would contribute to the Wiki, but only 5 said they would send people to
> the WG to finish 1.1.  
> As the old saying goes, "when you find yourself in a hole, stop
> digging." The sentiment of the XML industry as I read it is that XSD
> should be corrected via errata, clarified and explained in the Wiki,
> implemented properly with the help of the test suite, and THEN we can
> start thinking about 1.1.

  I wasn't present, I have read the minutes and the chairs' summary. I'm
surprized there wasn't much more minuted about the Test Suite discussion,
was the interest really low, or just that the right persons to discuss it
were not in the room ?
  We have been struggling as implementors with the spec, the Test Suite
is hence critically important to us, but it seems the amount of energy to
fix problems reported in the suite is very low at least I didn't see any
public reply to Kasimier's comments except that it would be forwarded to
a task force:

 I strongly support Michael's (Champion) position of finishing the 1.0
work first, by publishing erratas and fixing the issues in the Test Suite,
and only once done invest time and workforces into producing a new version
of the specification.
 Yes I know, it's really not fun work, but it is IMHO what is needed at
this point,



Daniel Veillard      | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
daniel@veillard.com  | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
http://veillard.com/ | 
Received on Tuesday, 12 July 2005 22:16:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:15:29 UTC