Subject: [Ltru] Re: To XML or not to XML

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 22:27:39 -0700

Martin Duerst <duerst at it dot aoyama dot ac dot jp> wrote:

> We have earlier discussed whether we should move to XML or not for the 
> registry. One unknown in these discussions was what was (or wasn't) 
> going on at IANA.
>
> Thanks to David's help, we now have a much better idea of what IANA is 
> up to. Given that information, I'd like us to make a firm decision on 
> whether to use XML or not for RFC464xbis soon. Please (re)state your 
> preference.

My preference is:

0

That is to say, neither +1 nor -1.  I see advantages and disadvantages 
to either sticking with record-jar or switching to XML.  I'm happy to 
let the rest of the group decide one way or the other, and I'll build 
RFC 4645bis accordingly.

(It should go without saying that switching to any format OTHER than XML 
would be a colossal mistake.)

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California, USA
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
RFC 4645  *  UTN #14

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "Felix Sasaki" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 15:52:05 +0900 (JST)

> to either sticking with record-jar or switching to XML.

Addison proposed "-1 to XML", while also stating that he would be fine
with a *non-normative* XML representation. My impression is that your "0"
is not incompatible to Addisons view - am I right?

> I'm happy to

I agree with Addisons proposal and also hope that the group adopts *one*
non-normative XML format. Otherwise different people outside this group
might just go ahead and create multiple XML representations for the same
purpose.

Felix

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 09:26:39 +0200

On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 03:52:05PM +0900,
 Felix Sasaki <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 57 lines which said:

> I agree with Addisons proposal and also hope that the group adopts
> *one* non-normative XML format. Otherwise different people outside
> this group might just go ahead and create multiple XML
> representations for the same purpose.

+1

Two proposals have been made and discussed.

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg05566.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg05604.html

Opinions are welcome about:

* Schema language to use (Frank used DTD, I used RelaxNG),
* "elements or attributes", the old XML thread :-)
* names for the elements: follow the RFC or not?

---

From: "Felix Sasaki" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:49:02 +0900 (JST)

> * Schema language to use (Frank used DTD, I used RelaxNG),
I would prefer either RELAX NG, since you can generate XML DTD / XML
Schema out of it easliy.

> * "elements or attributes", the old XML thread :-)
I would follow the comments from Martin in the thread on this list.
> * names for the elements: follow the RFC or not?

For further discussion on the topic, I would propose:
1) to wait until further comments come in or at least our co-chairs review
the discussion and see if the +1 above is really the way to go, and
2) to consider if we really want to use the bandwith of this group for the
discussion, since it would be a non-normative representation. To avoid
getting on many people nerves, it might be better to create the
representation with only the really interested parties. Of course, the
group should look at and endorse the result.

Felix

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 05:16:35 -0700

Felix Sasaki <fsasaki at w3 dot org> wrote:

> with a *non-normative* XML representation. My impression is that your 
> "0" is not incompatible to Addisons view - am I right?

Correct.

> this group might just go ahead and create multiple XML representations 
> for the same purpose.

If it's "non-normative," we can't really do anything about that, right?

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 05:20:11 -0700

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer at nic dot fr> wrote:

> ...

Definitely use the same names we use in the record-jar version. 
Choosing new names would be arbitrary and confusing.

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:42:01 +0200

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> * Schema language to use (Frank used DTD, I used RelaxNG)

The DTD is relevant for tools wanting this.  Otherwise it
is no problem to have both, or is it ?

> * "elements or attributes", the old XML thread :-)

Elements mostly, minus some additional xml:id / ref magic
for checking XREFs.  That results in <added>, <subtag>,
<tag>, and replacing a few EMPTY by PCDATA.

> * names for the elements: follow the RFC or not?

As needed, the only interesting case is Preferred-Value
as child of <deprecated>.  We could get away with mixed
content (?)

That's from my POV a fun project, if it does everything
we want (W3C validator + import into MS database + maybe
use by IANA) it's fine.

Frank

---

From: "Felix Sasaki" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 21:27:59 +0900 (JST)

> If it's "non-normative," we can't really do anything about that, right?

IMO
1) "normative" means "this is the format you MUST / SHOULD understand if
you implement this spec", whereas
2) "non-normative" means "for the ones who need it: this is just another
format we recommend".
As I said before, the purpose of 2) would be just to avoid confusion among
people who do the same thing, but without forcing everybody to go only
that path.
Anyway, since Martin wrote
"The survey is "Switch to XML or stay with record-jar"'
It seems that we don't have option 2).

Felix

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:29:16 +0200

On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 01:42:01PM +0200,
 Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]> wrote 

> is no problem to have both, or is it ?

DTD and RelaxNG do not have exactly the same expressive power. Which
means it is impossible to have a DTD schema and a RelaxNG schema which
accepts and rejects exactly the same documents.

For a normative use, it is clearly a problem so we should have only
one *normative* XML schema.

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 09:14:01 -0400

> accepts and rejects exactly the same documents.

Almost.  Within the domain of validation, a DTD may be losslessly
converted to a RELAX NG schema.  DTDs provide other things besides
validation (attribute typing and defaulting, entity definition) that
are not provided by RELAX NG.

(Just trying to remove confusion.)

-- 
John Cowan  [email-masked]  http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Does anybody want any flotsam? / I've gotsam.
Does anybody want any jetsam? / I can getsam.
        --Ogden Nash, No Doctors Today, Thank You

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 06:39:58 -0700

Felix Sasaki <fsasaki at w3 dot org> wrote:

> IMO
> 1) "normative" means "this is the format you MUST / SHOULD understand 
> if you implement this spec", whereas
> 2) "non-normative" means "for the ones who need it: this is just 
> another format we recommend".
> As I said before, the purpose of 2) would be just to avoid confusion 
> among people who do the same thing, but without forcing everybody to 
> go only that path.

If you think people would use our non-normative XML version instead of 
rolling their own, then I believe you.

> It seems that we don't have option 2).

I think Martin wants to make sure we address the "switch or don't 
switch" question first, without confusing that issue with other issues.

I agree with Martin that it would be a mistake to throw the field open 
to "pick your favorite format," since we already picked a format in LTRU 
1.0.  Changing an existing format is much more expensive than creating 
one from scratch.  The only significant reason for changing it now is 
IANA's adoption of XML for internal use, a factor that does not exist 
for other formats.

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 09:18:30 -0700

>> among people who do the same thing, but without forcing everybody to 

In particular, I think we would need to do the following:

1. Include a new subsection describing an alternate XML version of the 
registry, maintained by IANA in sync with the main record-jar version.

2. Include in that subsection a reference to a DTD published as an 
appendix in draft-4646bis, along with a mapping from the record-jar 
format to the DTD.

Applications would then be free to choose whichever copy of the registry 
they wished, but the registration form and process would remain 
unchanged, and, if any conflict were to arise, the record-jar version of 
the registry would be authoritative.

> IANA's adoption of XML for internal use, a factor that does not exist 

And IANA would be free to use XML internally... it is just that they'll 
be getting record-jar formatted data from the reviewer and they'll need 
to maintain the record-jar file.

Addison

-- 
Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.

---

From: "Felix Sasaki" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 08:37:20 +0900 (JST)

+1 to Addisons proposal.

Felix

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 13:15:21 +0900

>It seems that we don't have option 2).

As a co-chair, I'm interested in getting closure on some main issues
as early as possible. The initial mail in this thread was an attempt
to decide on the *main* format, with the two options of record-jar
and XML. Depending on the outcome, this does not exclude defining XML
as a secondary format, but we should wait with that decision. Of course,
expressions of preference such as "I prefer XML, but could live with
record-jar if we also define an alternative XML format" are okay at
this stage.

Regards,   Martin.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: "Felix Sasaki" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 18:58:31 +0900 (JST)

[snip]

> record-jar if we also define an alternative XML format" are okay at

Thank you for the clarification, Martin. I would say: I prefer XML, but
think that it is not feasible to have it as a main format without major
modifications in the draft. So let's have record-jar in the draft.
For the idea of XML as a secondary format: +1.

Felix

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 22:58:47 +0200

On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 09:18:30AM -0700,
 Addison Phillips <[email-masked]> wrote 

> appendix in draft-4646bis, along with a mapping from the record-jar

Please replace "a DTD" by "a schema". DTD is one of several possible
schema languages for XML and most XML users believe it is the worst.

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 18:43:21 -0700

Addison Phillips <addison at yahoo dash inc dot com> wrote:

> Applications would then be free to choose whichever copy of the 
> registry they wished, but the registration form and process would 
> remain unchanged, and, if any conflict were to arise, the record-jar 
> version of the registry would be authoritative.

IMHO, ietf-languages needs to be as diligent as possible about 
preventing such conflicts from ever happening.  This is why I suggested 
that IANA forward each updated Registry to the Reviewer for AUTH48-like 
verification *before* posting it publicly.