Re: XML Schema language version

I think it would be a creative but perfectly reasonable interpretation =
of the XSD 1.1 specification to advise users to set vc:minVersion=3D"1.0" =
or vc:minVersion=3D"1.1" or vc:maxVersion=3D"1.0" on the xs:schema =
element to indicate whether they expect to use a 1.0 processor or a 1.1 =
processor for the schema, and for an IDE such as oXygen to use this =
attribute when selecting a processor to run.

See http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-1/#cip

Michael Kay
Saxonica

On 2 Oct 2013, at 20:55, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote:

>=20
> On Sep 26, 2013, at 2:58 AM, George Cristian Bina wrote:
>=20
>> Hi all,
>>=20
>> We introduced XML Schema 1.1 support in oXygen some time ago. As =
there is no way to specify the version of the XML Schema language we =
added an application option that controls what version is in use. By =
default XML Schema 1.1 is selected and we show a notification to the =
user informing him that we use XML Schema 1.1 with two options:
>> Continue with 1.1
>> Switch back to 1.0
>> After the user chooses one of these options this notification =
disappears and is not presented again, the user being able to change the =
XML Schema version from the oXygen preferences and even specify a =
specific value for each project.
>>=20
>> One problem we encountered with a number of users is that they choose =
to continue with XML Schema 1.1 and then they forget about this. They =
develop XML Schema 1.1 schemas and deploy them to users using XML Schema =
1.0 tools, without being aware that they are using XML Schema 1.1 =
features in their schemas.
>>=20
>> Not having a mechanism of setting the XML Schmea language version =
inside the schema file makes difficult working with XML Schema 1.0 and =
XML Schema 1.1 files in the same time.
>>=20
>> We can add of course an oXygen specific way of specifying the XML =
Schema language version required to process a specific XML Schema in the =
form of a PI or an annotation but it will be useful to see if there is =
more interest in having this functionality and then find a better way to =
specify and implement this so that people can use the same syntax and =
have that understood by more tools. Maybe a W3C Note will be a good =
choice for specifying this, similar to the xml-model PI for associating =
a schema with a document.
>=20
> It certainly seems that the two decisions (a) not to put any version =
identifier
> into an XSD 1.0 schema, and (b) not to change the namespace in XSD =
1.1,
> working together, were a mistake.
>=20
> I believe the URIs specified in XSD 1.1 for denoting specific versions =
of=20
> XSD should be useful here -- at least, they provide a standard way to =
say
> things like "XSD 1.0" and "XSD 1.1".
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> ****************************************************************
> * C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, Black Mesa Technologies LLC
> * http://www.blackmesatech.com=20
> * http://cmsmcq.com/mib                =20
> * http://balisage.net
> ****************************************************************
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20