[relax-ng] Fw: RELAX NG TC meeting 2002-10-24

[James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Fitzgerald" <michael@fitzgerald.name>
To: <jjc@jclark.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 5:22 AM
Subject: RELAX NG TC meeting 2002-10-24


> [James: Please forward these minutes to the RELAX NG list as 
> I cannot post directly from my Web e-mail account which is 
> the only access I have here (the Patagonia, Arizona public 
> library). Thanks a lot. -Mike]
> 
> Minutes for a RELAX NG teleconference held 24 October 2002 at 
> 09:00 EDT (UTC -05:00).
> 
> Next meeting will be 31 October 2002 at 09:00 EST (UTC -
> 04:00).
> 
> Attending
> 
> James
> John (technically now an observer %^{)
> Josh
> Kohsuke
> Makoto
> Mike
> Norm
> 
> David not present
> 
> Agenda
> 
> 1. RELAX NG adoption
> 
> James: XML schema is now supported by gazillions of 
> applications, MS Office apps will support it in the next 
> release; it's a complicated story but two schema languages is 
> too many
> Makoto: and MS offers commodity solutions
> James: We have no big company backing RELAX NG
> Kohuske: Perhaps we should submit RELAX NG to W3C?
> Makoto: I have heard that XHTML 2.0 will offer RELAX NG 
> schemas.
> Norm: I think it is too early to tell, many consider still 
> using both languages
> Makoto: I know that IBM has suffered from using XML Schema a 
> lot and are considering using RELAX NG
> Josh: I know that people what type derivation and single 
> inheritance, but also unordered elements
> James: They are trying to force Java on XML
> Josh: I think we should push RELAX NG to XML schema 
> translation
> Makoto: We need editor support
> James: The stability of our specs should influence future work
> Makoto: What level of XML Schema adoption is there?
> James: I don't know
> John: The DTD is numerically dominant
> Josh: People are using DTDs overwhelmingly
> James: include weak text based 
> ACTION: Write up solution (?)
> John: We could make regex modular
> James: But it would be cleaner in core...we also have M..N
> Makoto: I think it will slow down implementation if we move 
> too quickly to 2.0, think we should take 1-2 years
> John: I think 1 year would be good; we aslo need books, 
> people think books make something real
> Norm: I am split...we need to appear vibrant to develop 
> interest
> John: but progress is not necessarily feature-itis
> Mike: it's too early to give up the ship...we can do modular 
> specs for type annotations [assignment] and identity 
> constraints
> James: we are going to do those
> 
> 2. Attribute grammar
> 
> James: implementers need type information, our audience is 
> implementers who are more accustomed to JavaCC or yacc than 
> attrbute grammars
> Makoto: They are teaching attribute grammars in schools, 
> young implementers will be familiar with it, but it can be 
> verbose
> James: yet I am not saying that compactness is a virtue
> David Rosenberg has examined the grammar
> Makoto: but obvious mistakes have not been pointed out yet
> James: we need to read for both correctness and 
> understanding, what about my comment about needing to go up 
> and down the parse tree? there is a lack of explicit typing, 
> making it clearer for JavaCC or yacc
> Makoto: I need to make a table for all attributes and types
> James: Makoto and I will discuss this, advantages and 
> disadvantages, on the list
> 
> 3. Attribute/element keywords verbose in RNC?
> 
> John: Symmetry trumps compactness
> James: readability and compactness are not the same 
> thing...readability is most important
> Nobody wanted to change this.
> 
> 4. Non-structure preserving translators
> 
> James: after simplification, schemas are equivalent if both 
> though the exact same structure need not be retained
> Kohsuke: isomorphic does not mean identical
> John: tow resulting schema are the same with possible 
> reordering and renaming
> James: annotation comments from Makoto and David Rosenberg, 
> issues list needs to be updated by Kohsuke
> [unclear discussion of RFC 2045 MIME and annotations, do it 
> in grammar, construct XML document to match grammar but not 
> sufficient to match all constructs, annotation top-level 
> body, alternate pattern constraint]
> 
> 5. Two hashes for comments?
> 
> John: at least 2 hashes
> James: end of doc parse error
> John: ##+
> Norm: yes
> Mike: yes
> Makoto: abstain
> Josh: a no-op
> Kohsuke: yes
> 
> ##+ it is.
> Mike
> ==================
> Michael Fitzgerald
> Wy'east Communications
> mailto:mike@wyeast.net
> http://www.wyeast.net
> 
> 
>