Re: [ubl-csc] Summary of my confusion in 0.80 vis-a-vis London decisions

["G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>]

Thank you, Anne, for your feedback on this.

At 2003-06-27 07:58 -0700, Anne Hendry wrote:
>I beleive the quote you note below from Chee-Kai is in reference
>to the current round of schemas, as opposed to what the final
>round of schemas will be.  I believe the current set of schemas
>have not yet fully implemented the naming
>...
>I understood to refer to the current instantiation,
>not the final form.  It was in response to the question of whether
>global or local had been implemented in the latest schemas yet.

This would explain a lot yet this did not come out in my postings to the 
LCSC list.

Unfortunately, if this is true then this leaves the FPSC work "dangling" on 
our critical path without any schemas to work with.  I would also think 
that 0.80 could not be released for review with the schemas not reflecting 
the required rules.

>Note you have sent this mail only to the chairs list not the lcsc.
>Was that your intention?

Yes, because I thought my thread at LCSC ended with the conclusion that the 
draft work FPSC was given (by way of Stephen Green) was what FPSC was 
supposed to be working with.  There were no dangling ends once I was led to 
believe the "local/global" issue is distinct from the "type reuse" issue 
and that the draft schemas are close to what is needed for 0.80.

I started the CSC thread initially as a confession of my confusion in 
London, hoping also to bring the issue to light for Eduardo and others.  I 
thought not all chairs would be monitoring LCSC and that by sharing my 
confusion I might help other chairs understand the situation better.

Certainly your comments above help and FPSC can go back "on hold" while we 
await a draft of the schemas that more closely approximates the finalized 
schemas.

Note there is a ripple effect of perhaps wasted time and energy as the 
latest set of draft instances (work by Bill Meadows and Stephen Green) 
validates against the draft schemas.  If the draft schemas are, indeed, not 
close to the final schemas, then the instance work will have to be 
redone.  I cannot spare my available time to produce a 0.80Draft3 version 
of stylesheets for the 0.80Draft3 version of instances that validate 
against the 0.80Draft3 version of schemas if the 0.80Final version of the 
schemas is going to be drastically different from a naming perspective.

Tim, as LCSC chair, can I ask you to contact me offline (so I don't end up 
taking the time from too many people) regarding the draft nature of these 
0.80Draft3 schemas?  Should I be reviving this issue and these implications 
directly to the LCSC list?

Please advise.  I'm not sure how I can best help here other than exposing 
my confusion.

..................... Ken

--
Upcoming hands-on courses: in-house corporate training available;
North America public:  XSL-FO Aug 4,2003; XSLT/XPath Aug 12, 2003

G. Ken Holman                mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
Crane Softwrights Ltd.         http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/
Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0   +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995)
ISBN 0-13-065196-6                      Definitive XSLT and XPath
ISBN 0-13-140374-5                              Definitive XSL-FO
ISBN 1-894049-08-X  Practical Transformation Using XSLT and XPath
ISBN 1-894049-11-X              Practical Formatting Using XSL-FO
Member of the XML Guild of Practitioners:    http://XMLGuild.info
Male Breast Cancer Awareness http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/bc