Re: [xml-dev] Ten new XQuery, XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 Working

[AndrewWatt2000@aol.com]

In a message dated 08/05/2003 01:31:51 GMT Daylight Time, mc@xegesis.org writes:


> Right.  But how about "I don't want to have to deal with all 40-odd XSDL 
> types in my implementation, please change the Basic conformance level"?  
> That seems to this outsider like a constructive suggestion, especially 
> given the widespread, uhh, shall we say "lack of enthusiasm" for the XSDL 
> type system (that Amy so brilliantly expounds upon).


Mike,

Michael Kay has indicated on the official public-qt-comments list that this is already possible. At least that's how I read his comment.

I am in process of a discussion with him on public-qt-comments re how well that is communicated in the specs. I don't think it is particularly clear in the drafts and you don't seem to have picked it up either. ... Of course, maybe we are both dumb. :)

I think it is a common situation that arises in communicating complex ideas. What is "clear" to the writer may still be "opaque" to the reader.

And I am "encouraging" the WG to produce a Primer (analagous to the one for XSD Schema). At the moment I get the impression that I am not pushing at an open door.

> Also, [definitely not wearing my Day Job hat, Dr. Kay gets paid to think 
> about XPath/Xquery for our employer!] "alternative futures that we would 
> prefer" is EXACTLY the question that the W3C Powers that Be are supposed to 
> wrestle with before issuing a Recommendation, and they need input from the 
> community as to whether a draft spec fits their needs or not. 


"need" and "want" may not be synonymous, of course.

The Powers
> that Be don't pay attention to comments that a WG didn't have a chance to consider.  So, bottom line, for better or worse, if one wants TimBL and the TAG to listen to a fundamental criticism about a spec, "unconstructive" 
> though it may be, one must annoy the WG on their comments list and be 
> prepared for a "we considered and rejected your suggestion" response, and 
> then refuse to accept the "resolution" so that the issue must be tracked 
> all the way to the Director so that he can review it before approving the 
> Proposed Recommendation.


For my education, is that why at the end of many/all official responses to comments there is a rhetorical question to the effect, "Is that ok with you?". Which I typically don't respond to.

So, if I write back and say "No, you need to do better" (or words to that effect, with supporting justification) ... I am referring to the general case here not specifically XSLT / XPath / XQuery ... then a button is pressed to start a review process, either in the WG or higher up. Is that correct?

I guess it makes sense to flag "unresolved issues" and consider those before PR / REC status. It gives W3C some measure of reassurance that a daft idea isn't being pushed through by a bunch of folks with a common vested interest (which, in one sense at least, is what a W3C WG is).

  [Someone correct me if I'm wrong about the 
> process here, and it may be only W3C members that get to "lie down in the 
> road" like this.]


<grin/> ... Maybe not for much longer. :)

In practice, I suspect that a W3C member would have a significantly louder voice.

Andrew Watt