Escalation mechanism for different interpretation of W3C XML-Schema specification ?

We, the CDISC XML-Tech Governance Team (and other CDISC teams) have developed a number of extensible standards for exchange of clinical data and for submitting information to the regulatory authorities (FDA).

CDISC is a Standardization Organization active in the healthcare world.

Our extension mechanism is based on the "import" and "redefine" elements of XML-Schema.

We now have a serious dispute with one technology vendor (Altova) about the way "import" and "redefine" are used. Instance files of one of our extensions (so-called "define.xml") validate well in all major validators and XML-editors, except for the products of this one vendor.

When confronted with this result, the reaction of Altova essentially is that "Altova is right, all others are wrong". The dispute and discussion with Altova can be followed at:
http://www.altova.com/forum/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1000005665

The issue were not so serious if it were not that our standard "define.xml" is a standard for submission of information to the regulatory authorities, and these are (mostly) using the Altova product for validation.

We now want to escalate the issue to the W3C itself, and would like to know what the mechanism is to do so.

Jozef Aerts
CDISC XML-Tech Governance Team