Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Peter Murray-Rust <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: XML Dev <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 22:20:40
At 15:07 02/06/98 UT, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>Lisa Rein writes:
>>it doesn't necessarily NEED to be stable, since any "specification" we
>>come up with is for experimental use only as our way of assiting the XML
>>working group for when they define the REAL spec yes?
>>Let's not forget that - although I have been personally amazed at the
>>unprecedented usefulness of this discussion group for its unprecedented
>>assistance to the WG on numerous occasions (and myself personally :-)
>>It is the XML WG -- NOT US -- that will ultimately define "XSchema's"
>>syntax etc. (if that is indeed what hey decide it should be called).
>>XML Schemas will be incorporated into the XML core itself, and must be
>>done so using due process...(to pick its prefix, or what have you...)
>In the long run, this is indeed true. In the short term, however, this is
It would be useful to have guidance here, because my perception differs. If
we are talking about the src= document of a namespace, I thought the WG had
been extremely careful not to specify what you might find in it. It could
be a DTD, a chunk of DRF or some XML-data. There seems no reason why it
shouldn't also be a BNF, chunks of java or an XSchema. So we need the
the ns= URI which tells people that the namespace is identified with the
XML-DEV XSchema effort.
the src= document which has the precise machine-readable specification
This might be a DTD, might be the equivalent XSchema, or might even be both
plus some documentation and ways of sorting out which to use.
>a WG project and we are not using WG 'due process' - just public discussion
>leading to (hopefully) a rough consensus on a specification. This is indeed
>an experimental specification, but it is a specification we hope to complete
>by the end of June, _complete with namespaces_.
>It would be nice if some of this proposal survives as part of an eventual
>specification, but it may well not. I'm focused on producing a workable
>specification, not contemplating its eventual demise. For a discussion
>XSchema/W3C WG issues, see
IMO the W3C process expects (and has sometimes encouraged) experimentation
and individual members of it will keep an eye on what we are doing. But
XSchema bears the same relationship to W3C as does any voluntarily produced
language effort (cf tcl, Perl, etc. in their beginnings) - i.e. it may be a
useful thing to interoperate with at some time.
Peter Murray-Rust, Director Virtual School of Molecular Sciences, domestic
VSMS http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/vsms, Virtual Hyperglossary
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:email@example.com)