Michael wrote:

> As the old saying goes, "when you find yourself in a hole, stop
> digging." The sentiment of the XML industry as I read it is that XSD
> should be corrected via errata, clarified and explained in the Wiki,
> implemented properly with the help of the test suite, and THEN we can
> start thinking about 1.1.

As a Chair I found summarising sentiment towards XML Schema 1.1 tricky, =
not
least because I heard strong opinions from major vendors both for and =
against it.

My impression was that many in the room weren't so much /against/ XML =
Schema 
1.1,  but possibly not that interested in it either. However many were =
interested in 
exploring approaches which did not necessarily involve work within the =
XML 
Schema WG, or prevent the WG from continuing work on 1.1.

There was interest that the Working Group should spend more time =
processing
errata and test cases, but concerns were raised at which companies would =
actually
'put bums on seats', providing resource to continue to debug 1.0 instead =
of 
working on 1.1.

Speaking for myself:

I seriously wonder how XML Schema 1.1 will solve our immediate =
interoperability 
and versioning problems in a way that's usable in Web services we plan =
to 
publish in the next two or three years - especially if we're unlikely to =
see
implementations from all of the major vendors.

Hearing the IEEE floating point type motivation for XML Schema 1.1 
reminded of the null character motivation for XML 1.1, a standard
difficult to reference in W3C specifications, let alone deploy in =
services.

If XML Schema 1.1 really is backwards compatible and is not about to 
fragment the community, I'd expect it to be called 
"XML Schema 1.0 Fourth Edition".

Paul


From veillard@v... Thu Jul 14 10:07:07 2005
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30