I just wrote a note to another member, and thought I should add an extra clarification just in case. The change isn't saying that the schema takes precedence over the content of the specification document, but that if the schema (or any other file) is incorporated into the specification document (oftentimes as an appendix), it's the separate text file that takes precedence.
Is that more clear?
I'm guessing based on early feedback that the Board Process Committee will be taking another look at this language (we meet weekly). We spent several weeks discussing to make sure the language was clear and instead it looks like we created something clear as mud ;)
On Aug 7, 2009, at 9:39 PM, Toby Nixon wrote:
Thanks, Mary; we appreciate the clarification. It does sound like when we produce 1.2 versions of the specs, we will need to update the conformance statement to match the TC Process. We’ll pay extra special attention to the separate text files! Toby Nixon | Senior Standards Program Manager | Windows Device and Storage Technologies | Microsoft Corporation
These changes go into effect on 1 September 2009 which means that work that is already either a Committee Specification or OASIS Standard would not be impacted. If, however, an existing CS were to go through another round of revisions on or after 1 September, it would be subject to the new policy.
Typically examples are always declared as non-normative so they should have no impact whatsoever.
On Aug 7, 2009, at 8:03 PM, Toby Nixon wrote:
In reviewing the updated TC Process, we made note that the new policy on precedence of separate text files over the specification text (Section 2.18) is inconsistent with what DPWS 1.1 and WS-Discovery 1.1 explicitly declare in the body of the specifications. For example, DPWS 1.1 Section 7 (Conformance) says “Normative text within this specification takes precedence over normative outlines, which in turn take precedence over the XML Schema [XML Schema Part 1, Part 2] descriptions, which in turn take precedence over examples.” This is exactly the opposite of the precedence declared in Section 2.18 of the updated TC Process. In adopting the new Process, did the OASIS Board indicate whether the precedence specified in the Process is intended to override any other precedence declared within the body of approved OASIS Specifications? Or is the precedence in Section 2.18 intended only to be a “default” precedence when no other precedence is declared within the body of the specifications? Thanks very much for helping us to understand the impact of this new policy on our specifications. Co-Chairs, OASIS WS-DD TC Toby Nixon | Senior Standards Program Manager | Windows Device and Storage Technologies | Microsoft Corporation