Michael Sperberg-McQueen wrote:
>Don't forget that the WG has in fact published quite a number of
>errata, all integrated into 1.0 Second Edition.  It's true that
>for the last year or so we have focused more on 1.1 than on
>errata and the test suite; the input from the workshop provides
>an argument for changing that emphasis a bit.

Perhaps, but it was not at >all< clear at the workshop how effective
the uptake of the errata has been.  The Schema WG can produce errata
but until the changes are implemented in tools there is no benefit.
While people might say "we need more errata work on XML Schema 1.0"
it was apparent that we as a community don't know what the state
of the art is with regard to processor implementations.  

I agree that the test suite is of huge importance.  My personal
interpretation of the scant discussion is as follows:

<opinion>
People realized that the test suite is there, and that it's a good
thing.  It needs more work in the form of contributions.  The Schema 
WG needs resources to do that work.  People weren't ready to make 
solid committments in terms of resources to get that work done.
</opinion>

Pressing too hard might have implied volunteering :-), so people
remained relatively quiet.

I wouldn't expect people to come to the meeting with the ability to
commit to things.  I do expect that they're at home continuing to
think about it and decide how they can help us move forward.

Best regards,
David Ezell



From dme@S... Wed Jul 13 20:52:05 2005
Received: