3076 2006-04-04 17:21:43 +0000 Normative ref to 1.0 or 1.1 datatypes 2008-03-17 21:01:04 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Datatypes: XSD Part 2 1.1 only PC Windows XP RESOLVED FIXED cluster: i18n resolved P1 minor --- 1 francois cmsmcq fsasaki www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 9028 0 francois 2006-04-04 17:21:43 +0000 Section 1.3: The spec should provide explicit ways for other specs to refer to it normatively, specifying either 1.0 datatypes, 1.1 datatypes or remaining intentionally ambiguous (1.0 or 1.1 being then determined otherwise, perhaps, as mentionned here, from the XML version of XML instances at hand). 11540 1 cmsmcq 2006-09-09 00:38:15 +0000 Apologies for the very slow response. Can you expand on this idea a bit? What kind of thing do you have in mind? The definition of technical terms so that other specs can say "The processors we are defining must conform to XML Schema 1.1 with the XML-1.1-datatypes option", or "... with either the XML-1.0-datatypes or the XML-1.1-datatypes option ..." and so on? Or did you have in mind something different? And, at another level (I am speaking for myself here, not the WG), can you describe the rationale for this idea a bit? I have been coming to believe that specs should normally NOT restrict their conforming processors to specific versions of other specs. They may in some cases usefully require that a particular version be supported, but I am becoming less and less enchanted with the idea of forbidding an implementation of specification X from supporting newer versions of specification Y. Perhaps I am influenced by the belief that some Web Services Working Groups have declined to support XML 1.1 in their specs, on the grounds that they are using XML Schema 1.0 and it REQUIRES that they support only XML 1.0. Even typical ISO specs are not that restrictive in their normative references. User profiles and agreements, on the other hand, clearly do need to be able to nail down versions of various specs to be accepted; perhaps it's that kind of thing you have in mind? In any case, thank you for the comment. (I should note, in closing, that this response is from me as an individual, not on behalf of the XML Schema Working Group.) 18099 2 cmsmcq 2007-12-14 20:02:06 +0000 The XML Schema discussed this issue during our call today (14 December 2007). We agreed to instruct the editors to prepare a wording proposal defining terms intended to make it convenient to describe systems (implementations, usage profiles, other specs, ...) which support / require that the XML-dependent datatypes be those of XML 1.0, such as require that they be the types of XML 1.1, and so on. An explicit wording proposal will be reproduced here in due course. In the meantime, I'm marking the issue needsDrafting and adding Felix Sasaki to the CC list (to ensure that the i18n WG is kept informed). 19515 3 sandygao 2008-03-17 21:01:04 +0000 At its telcon on 2008-03-14, the XML Schema WG adopted the wording proposal at http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.b3076.html (member-only link), and believes this issue now to be resolved. 2 terms are introduced: "XML-1.0-based datatypes" and "XML-1.1-based datatypes". François, please let us know if you agree with this resolution of your issue, by adding a comment to the issue record and changing the Status of the issue to Closed. Or, if you do not agree with this resolution, please add a comment explaining why. If you wish to appeal the WG's decision to the Director, then also change the Status of the record to Reopened. If you wish to record your dissent, but do not wish to appeal the decision to the Director, then change the Status of the record to Closed. If we do not hear from you in the next two weeks, we will assume you agree with the WG decision.