Re: Packaging team call

[jon.bosak@sun.com]

[anne.hendry@sun.com:]

| a) and b) were discussed in the coordination call and I'm sure Jon
| will send out a recap shortly.

Present on the call were Jon Bosak, Stephen Green, Anne Hendry,
Bill Meadows, and Lisa Seaburg.

Discussion:

 - It appears that under the current CL proposal, an extension to
   a code list will result in a change (or addition) to the
   namespaces referenced in the instance.  This is good.  But
   we're not sure whether it will also require a change (or
   addition) to the namespaces referenced in the schemas.

 - Several of us feel uneasy about ad hoc schema extensions.  Yes,
   they are handy, but so is ANY.

 - We suspect that there may be parsers in current use that do not
   support substitution groups.

 - We note that there is still a lot of controversy about
   substitution groups among XML experts (a google search will
   quickly confirm this).

 - We have not yet been able to establish whether this approach
   can be mirrored in other constraint languages such as RNG and
   ASN.1.

 - We would like to know whether there is an agreeable alternative
   for 1.0 that would not require us to adopt substitution groups
   and abstract elements until we have a better understanding of
   the implications.

Outcomes:

 - Stephen will attempt to explain an alternative that does not
   use substitution groups and abstract elements.

 - Jon will suggest that we use the Tuesday and Wednesday SC slots
   for joint meetings next week in order to achieve consensus on
   these and other issues, in particular what goes into the SDT.

 - Lisa will ask Marty to create sample schemas using the proposed
   code list mechanism so that we have something concrete to look
   at and can confirm that everything parses.

Jon