RE: [Update #2] XML Schema 1.1 Tutorial

First, taking the opportunity...  Roger, thanks very much for this tutorial.  I can't speak for the WG, but as chair, I deeply appreciate it!

Now on to the question of deprecating redefine...

I believe that Noah is right, that given the "priority feedback" nature of the plan to deprecate redefine, it would be appropriate, at this point, to note that the deprecation subject to feedback (Noah's suggested wording seems fine to me).

That said, "deprecation" doesn't mean you can't use a feature, and it absolutely doesn't mean that it's optional in XML Schema 1.1 -- <redefine> is >not< a "feature at risk", only its designation as deprecated is a "feature at risk".  Further, the designation doesn't imply that you're misinformed or deficient in some way if you >do< use it.  I use deprecated Java classes all the time -- they're embedded in my applications.  And I don't take offense or exception when classes I like are deprecated.  But the designation does help to inform my choices going forward.

The designation is simply an indication (or in this case a "potential indication") to folks starting from scratch that they should consider using "override" instead.  

Best regards,
David Ezell


-----Original Message-----
From: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org [mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Costello, Roger L.
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 11:30 AM
To: 'Eliot Kimber'; noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org; sandygao@ca.ibm.com
Subject: RE: [Update #2] XML Schema 1.1 Tutorial

Here's what the XML Schema 1.1 specification says:

   The <redefine> construct is *deprecated*

/Roger 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eliot Kimber [mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 11:26 AM
> To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com; Costello, Roger L.
> Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org; sandygao@ca.ibm.com
> Subject: Re: [Update #2] XML Schema 1.1 Tutorial  
> 
> On 8/12/09 10:14 AM, "noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com"
> <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > Overall, I think this is excellent, and much improved from the first
> > version.  One quibble, though reasonable people might 
> disagree with my
> > position on this:
> > 
> > You say on Slide 25 that <redefine> is deprecated, but that 
> is followed in
> > the CR draft with a feedback request asking the community 
> whether such
> > deprecation is a good idea.  Speaking for myself (not IBM), 
> I think it's
> > too early to deprecate redefine.  It's a supported feature 
> of 1.0, and as
> > far as I know it's widely used.  Although there's some optimism that
> > <override> will be a good substitute, that's as yet 
> unproven and in any
> > case deprecating features that users have already deployed 
> at best tends
> > to make them nervous.
> 
> The DITA standard depends entirely on the redefine feature in 
> XSD 1.0. While
> we are hoping that XSD 1.1 provides a better alternative to 
> redefine, until
> it's both defined and implemented sufficiently widely (e.g., 
> in Xerces and
> other widely-used XML parsers) we cannot move away from the 
> use of redefine.
> 
> For DITA's sake, I agree with Noah that deprecating redefine 
> in XSD 1.1
> would be premature and probably result in serious PR 
> difficulties for DITA,
> where use of XSD is already dicey because of the current 
> implementation
> status and spec ambiguity of redefine in XSD 1.0.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Eliot
> 
> 
> ----
> Eliot Kimber | Senior Solutions Architect | Really Strategies, Inc.
> email:  ekimber@reallysi.com <mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com>
> office: 610.631.6770 | cell: 512.554.9368
> 2570 Boulevard of the Generals | Suite 213 | Audubon, PA 19403
> www.reallysi.com <http://www.reallysi.com>  | http://blog.reallysi.com
> <http://blog.reallysi.com> | www.rsuitecms.com 
> <http://www.rsuitecms.com> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 12 August 2009 17:05:18 UTC