W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-its@w3.org > January to March 2006

[Bug 3000] Allowing extensibility in its:documentRules

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 12:39:15 +0000
CC:
To: public-i18n-its@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1FNr07-0007eO-Af@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3000





------- Comment #15 from fsasaki@w3.org  2006-03-27 12:39 -------
(In reply to comment #14)
> It would be easy enough in the ODD to specify as a part of
> a content model  eg
>       <zeroOrMore>
>         <attribute>
>           <anyName/>
>           <text/>
>         </attribute>
>       </zeroOrMore> 
> which would allow any attribute in any namespace. but that
> throws some chances of validation out the window, as it would also
> means that 'tarnslate="yes"' was valid.
> 
> Personally, I think explicit allowance for anything seems like
> bad design. We're trying to predict things which by definition
> we cannot predict, at the cost of schema which which will
> be very loose in Relax and W3C, and impossible in DTD.

I agree. At http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3000#c10 Yves said,
he wants "out of the box" schemas for ITS. The example I created at
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3000#c11 is such an out of the
box schema, with all disadvantages Sebastian mentioned: no predicatbility and
cost of loose schemas.
You can't have both a loose schema and schema which is good for validation. I
would go for the later, hence: change nothing and just tell people that they
can use namespace for extensions (what we already do).
Received on Monday, 27 March 2006 12:39:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:43:06 UTC