XML |
XML Schema
W3C XML Schema WG
Process for handling comments on the XML Schema 1.0 Recommendation
Henry S. Thompson
Lisa Martin
19 June 2001
This document describes a proposal for a process to be used by the Errata Task Force
and the W3C XML Schema Working Group in handling comments received on the
Recommendation of XML Schema.
The XML Schema Working Group is responsible for handling comments raised
on the Recommendation. Such comments may include:
- clarification of the meaning of various parts of the spec
- editorial/typographical comments
- errors or inconsistencies in the spec
- proposals for new functionality and requirements for future XML Schema features
The Working Group will respond to commentators, answer questions on the spec,
maintain an Errata Document that contains clarifications/corrections
to the spec, and capture requests for future enhancements. The remainder
of this document describes the process for doing this.
As with earlier stages of our work, the WG is required by the W3C
process to seek to resolve issues by consensus.
We will seek, where possible, to
satisfy the commentator, or in the cases where we cannot satisfy
the commentator we will seek at least to ensure that the comments
and our responses are documented fully.
Three documents will be maintained by the WG:
- Rec Issues List:
This document contains a numbered list of comments received
on the Rec, and will include information such as:
- Abstract: A brief description of the issue/comment.
- Comment details: A pointer to the mail containing the comment.
- Status: The status of the issue: NEW, IN_PROGRESS, RESOLVED
- Classification: The classification of the comment. See
3.2 Classification for more details.
- Responsible: The TF or WG member responsible for handling the comment/issue,
once classified.
- Resolution: A brief description of the resolution of the comment/issue.
This may include a pointer to the Errata or Requirements document as well.
- Errata document:
This document contains approved errata to the Rec.
- Requirements document:
This document contains proposals for future enhancements to
the XML Schema language. This document is maintained by the Requirements Task Force.
The Errata TF has defined the following procedure for dealing with
comments received on the Recommendation.
Progress updates will be provided by the errata TF to the Schema WG bi-weekly, on
Wednesdays.
Any reference to "editors" below, is a reference to both 1.0 and 1.1 editorial teams.
The Errata TF will review the IG and comments list to identify
points which require some response from the WG, and add items to
the Rec Issues List for each point raised which needs to be
tracked.
Note that questions which have already been answered by a WG member on the mail list, and
require no errata, need not be added to the list. In addition, the errata TF may choose to respond to such questions (those requiring no errata) directly, and not include them on the Issues List; this is at the discretion of the errata TF.
Duplicate comments will not be added
to the list.
The Errata TF will then send a note to the commentator to
acknowledge receipt of the comment, or indicate that the comment is a duplicate, and
refer the commentator to the appropriate comment in the Rec Issues List.
Each comment may be classified into one of the following categories:
- A. Editorial
- B. Clarification or question requiring no erratum
- C. Clarification requiring erratum
- D. Error requiring erratum
- E. Major Error - to be deferred to 1.1
- F. Future requirement
- G. Doc suggestion: a suggested improvement to the documentation, as opposed to a requirement for the language
The Errata TF and editors will propose a classification for each NEW comment
in the Rec Issues List. The proposed classifications (along with brief descriptions)
will be sent to the WG via email for review/approval.
Once the classification of a comment has been approved,
the Errata TF updates the comment with the classification, and changes the status to be
IN_PROGRESS.
The TF/Editors are permitted to classify comments as A. Editorial without WG approval.
The following is the process for resolving each classified comment:
A. Editorial comment:
- An editor or errata TF member is assigned to handle the comment, and the
Rec Issues List is updated to record who is responsible
- An erratum is added to the Errata Document.
- The comment is marked as status RESOLVED in the Rec Issues List, with a pointer to the Errata Document.
- A note is sent to the commentator, indicating that the comment has been handled.
Note that the WG is not required to review the text of an editorial erratum.
B. Clarification requiring no erratum:
- The errata TF requests a WG member to act as owner of the comment. The Rec Issues List
is updated to record who is responsible
- The owner sends a note to the commentator, providing
the requested clarification.
- The comment is marked as status RESOLVED in the Rec Issues List, with a pointer to the response sent to the commentator.
C. Clarification requiring erratum:
- An editor or errata TF member is assigned as owner of the comment, and the
Rec Issues List is updated to record who is responsible
- The owner determines the text for the erratum, and the proposed text is discussed in
the TF.
- A vote on the proposed erratum will be held by electronic ballot within the WG.
- Once approved, the erratum is added to the Errata Document.
- The comment is marked as status RESOLVED in the Rec Issues List, with a pointer to the Errata Document.
- The owner sends a note to the commentator, indicating that the comment has been handled.
D. Error requiring erratum:
- An editor or errata TF member is assigned as owner of the comment, and the
Rec Issues List is updated to record who is responsible
- The owner determines the text for the erratum, and the proposed text is discussed in
the TF.
- A vote on the proposed erratum will be held by electronic ballot within the WG.
- Once approved, the erratum is added to the Errata Document.
- The comment is marked as status RESOLVED in the Rec Issues List, with a pointer to the Errata Document.
- The owner sends a note to the commentator, indicating that the comment has been handled.
E. Major Error - Defer to 1.1
- A requirements TF member is assigned as owner of the comment, and the
Rec Issues List is updated to record who is responsible
- The requirements TF ensures that an entry for the issue is added to the Requirements document.
- The owner sends a note to the
commentator, indicating the issue has been added to the Requirements document, and will
be considered for a future spec. The errata TF is notified that this has been done.
- The comment is marked as status RESOLVED in the Rec Issues List, with a pointer to the Requirements Document for the issue.
F. Requirement
- A requirements TF member is assigned as owner of the comment, and the
Rec Issues List is updated to record who is responsible
- An entry for the issue is added to the Requirements Document
- The owner sends a note to the
commentator, indicating the feature has been added to the Requirements Document. The errata TF is notified that this has been done.
- The comment is marked as status RESOLVED in the Rec Issues List, with a pointer to the Requirements Document for the issue.
G. Doc Suggestion
- An errata TF member is assigned as owner of the comment, and the
Rec Issues List is updated to record who is responsible
- The owner sends a note to the
commentator, indicating the suggestion will be considered in a future revision of the specification.
- The comment is marked as status RESOLVED in the Rec Issues List.
Each comment received after April 13, 2001 should be acted on.
Each resolution will be documented,
and the commentator will be notified of the resolution. The list of
all comments raised, and their disposition, will be made public as
part of the WG's decision record.
$Id: xmlschema-errataprocess.html,v 1.3 2001/12/20 02:37:03 cmsmcq Exp $