- From: Costello, Roger L. <costello@mitre.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:50:59 -0400
- To: "'David Ezell'" <David_E3@VERIFONE.com>, "'Eliot Kimber'" <ekimber@reallysi.com>, "noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- CC: "xmlschema-dev@w3.org" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>, "sandygao@ca.ibm.com" <sandygao@ca.ibm.com>
Thanks Noah, Dave, Eliot, I changed the slides (slide 25 and slide 253) about <redefine> to say: The XML Schema working group is considering deprecating the <redefine> element. Noah, I also changed slide 50 per your suggestion: http://www.xfront.com/xml-schema-1-1/xml-schema-1-1.ppt /Roger > -----Original Message----- > From: David Ezell [mailto:David_E3@VERIFONE.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:03 PM > To: Costello, Roger L.; '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 > > 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 17:51:40 UTC