W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > July 2008

Re: one thing we forgot

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2008 13:31:30 -0400
To: "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
Cc: "Michael Kifer" <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>, "RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <24249.1215279090@ubuhebe>

> In the following I assume we do *not* differentiate dialects by pointing
> from instance documents to the locations where their schemas are defined
> (via xsi:schemaLocation, xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation, or similar:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xmlschema11-1-20060831/#xsi_schemaLocation
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xmlschema11-1-20060831/#schema-loc).
> 
> What about having an ***optional*** attribute, dialect, on <Document>?
> It optionally specifies the dialect the sender intends this Document to
> be validated against.

I don't think that works.  The sender says it's Dialect 1, which the
receiver has never heard of.  It happens to fall into the intersection
of Dialect 2 (which the receiver implements, and the sender has never
heard of) and Dialect 1, so it's perfectly usable.  But if the attribute
is present, the document will have to be discarded, right?

> The receiver is still free to reuse the Document in
> novel dialects by trying to analyze its syntactic features.

Ah, so the attribute has no meaning or affect on the receiver?  Then
what's the point?  Who is going to look at?  Only incorrect
implementations.  Why do want to help them do the wrong thing?

> Isn't the official set of names, {BLD, DTB, PRD, ...}, of collections of
> those features (Standard Extensions), and their intended use, something
> RIF has to carefully keep track of anyway?

This matters mostly for non-standard (vendor) extensions, I think.

      -- Sandro
Received on Saturday, 5 July 2008 17:33:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:50 GMT