> From what I understand from talking to participants and reading
> the minutes, "only weak support, however, for proposals to drop
> XML Schema 1.1 from the Working Group's task list" is somewhat
> backwards.  There was only weak support for finishing XML 1.1
> according to the table in the minutes.

Mike, you are of course absolutely right.  There was both some
(weak) support for dropping 1.1, and some (weak) support for
keeping it as a top priority of the XML Schema Working Group.  As
far as the numbers show, the room was split down the middle
between those who favored the completion of XML Schema 1.1 as a
high priority, and those who opposed it or had no opinion.

So why did I write it one way, rather than the other?

Simple: I call 'em as I see 'em.  

No one at the workshop can fail to have been struck by how
widespread the adoption of XML Schema 1.0 has been, how
intricately intertwined it is with other tools, or how slow will
be the process of replacing it with any other schema language.
Anyone who thought that the WG should be ignoring 1.0 and
spending all of its time on 1.1 will have heard a lot of reasons
to think otherwise.

The workshop gave everyone interested in schema languages a lot
to think about, and I confidently expect it to affect the way the
XML Schema Working Group allocates its time in the coming months.

But after hearing the very strong statements from two presenters
at the workshop that the WG should stop work on 1.1 (echoed now
in this thread by you and Jonathan Marsh), and seeing the very
strong support for more work on 1.0 errata reports and the test
suite, what was striking to Paul and me was how weak the support
for abandoning 1.1 was, and how strong the support for completing
it.  So that's the aspect we remarked upon.

I encourage any W3C member organization with an interest in the
matter to help steer the XML Schema WG in what you hold to be the
right direction by joining the WG and helping get the work done.

Non-members, you can help, too, in the usual way: by reviewing
the documents and sending comments to the comments list.

-C. M. Sperberg-McQueen