Re: Comments and questions (LC-23 2000 vs 1999)

• From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
• Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 21:39:48 -0500
• To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org, "Falk, Alexander" <falk@icon.at>
• Message-ID: <39E28174.89A291D1@w3.org>

Mr. Falk,
Thanks for your careful review. Sorry it took us
so long to get back to you, but we did eventually
get around to addressing some of the issues
you raised. In particular, I'd like to know
if you find the way we dealt with this issue:
> From: "Falk, Alexander" <falk@icon.at>
> To: "'www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org'" <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
> Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 14:03:36 +0200
[...]
> Part 1 - Structures
> 
> A. Schema for Schemas
> Why does the Public Identifier URN for the DOCTYPE statement still use
> 19991216 as its date, when the DTD for Schemas (Appendix B) is v1.1 dated
> 2000/04/06. This Public Identifier URN seems to imply that the Schema for
> Schemas is itself written in compliance with the old December 1999 XML
> Schema draft, which it is not.
> Along the same lines: the year in the XML Schema namespace URI is also still
> fixed with 1999 - is that going to change for the final recommendation?
> While it is understandable from an implementors point of view that the URN
> should remain constant over the time of the draft and recommendation
> creation, it would IMHO be rather confusing for all future schema authors,
> if the date given here is not identical to the date of the final
> recommendation.
In our recent draft:
"Note that this revision incorporates several
backwards-incompatible changes to the XML representation
of schemas. Accordingly, the XML Schema namespace
URI has changed, to https://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema."
	-- https://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xmlschema-1-20000922/
I expect that the next draft will elaborate on this a
bit, but I'd like to know if what we've done so
far is satisfactory.
We're tracking this issue as...
https://whttps://www.w3.org/2000/05/12-xmlschema-lcissues#namespace-date
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C https://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Monday, 9 October 2000 22:40:02 UTC