W3C Architecture Domain 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.

1. Overview

The XML Schema Working Group is responsible for handling comments raised on the Recommendation. Such comments may include:

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.

2. Documents

Three documents will be maintained by the WG:

  1. Rec Issues List:

    This document contains a numbered list of comments received on the Rec, and will include information such as:

  2. Errata document:

    This document contains approved errata to the Rec.

  3. Requirements document:

    This document contains proposals for future enhancements to the XML Schema language. This document is maintained by the Requirements Task Force.

3. Procedure

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.

3.1 Initial capture and Acknowledgment

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.

3.2 Classification

Each comment may be classified into one of the following categories:

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.

3.3 Action post-classification

The following is the process for resolving each classified comment:

A. Editorial comment:

Note that the WG is not required to review the text of an editorial erratum.

B. Clarification requiring no erratum:

C. Clarification requiring erratum:

D. Error requiring erratum:

E. Major Error - Defer to 1.1

F. Requirement

G. Doc Suggestion

4 Summary

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 $