OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] The truth about standards...

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

I interpret it to favor the W3C specifications 
even if they are works in progress over other 
standards organization works even if these are 
complete.  That eliminates competitors if there 
is a W3C candidate. 

So we aren't to compare the relative merits of 
each but take the W3C uber alles.  That's bad 
policy.  It does let the Project Management 
have the last say, and that is pretty much 
what policy has always been.   It does enable 
justifications such as the wall-to-wall use 
of one vendor's technology predisposing some 
parts to be proprietary.   Lots of wiggle room 

They do need to clarify and they do need to 
understand that some technologies will have 
better alternatives for some cases.  RELAXNG 
is probably the star case for that.


From: Rick Jelliffe [mailto:ricko@allette.com.au]

> Take a look at the Draft Federal Standard for 
> XML Developers.  Note that it prefers W3C specs 
> over works from other organizations even if the 
> W3C specs are works in progress.   So in a policy 
> document, the sort of thing Gosling mentions is 
> indeed happening.

How do you get that?  In

it merely says that full standards must be used, and where there
is competition, favour a W3C Recommendation.  If there is a
W3C Proposed Recommendation, you may decide to favour
that if you commit to upgrading when the Rec comes out.

"Ensure" is a funny word to use, and may have some American public 
service meaning, I suppose, but on the face of it, if there is no WXS REC 
in sight, you should fallback to another standard, and if there are 
no standards, you are then (naturally) in the province of proprietary or 
custom applications.  They need to clarify.

It also specifically mentions and allows ISO, ebXML and OASIS standards.
Indeed, if there is an ISO or OASIS standard and a proprietary 
technology, people must choose the standard.
Then it goes on to say "use XML Schemas" (unless you are continuing
with SGML-ish DTD projects).  This specifically shuts the door
on using DTDs and RELAX NG for being the published structure definition
languages for public schemas.  

It seems that Schematron (assuming it is accepted as an ISO standard) 
would fit in OK if used to augment a primary WXS schema. The mention
of annotations suggests that embedded Schematron is OK too.  In particular,
it would not be a "proprietary extension" and could not be used to "define
structures": instead it is providing (executable) documentation on things like 
links to external vocabularies and co-occurrence constraints, which are
out-of-scope for WXS. 


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS