Forwarded message 1
Norm,
My reply did not reach the ML, probably because the W3C spam filter blocked
my mail.
Cheers,
Makoto
Forwarded by MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <EB2M-MRT@asahi-net.or.jp>
----------------------- Original Message -----------------------
From: "MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)" <EB2M-MRT@asahi-net.or.jp>
To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Cc: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>,
dan@dankohn.com,
MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 18:33:25 +0900
Subject: Re: XML Core WG devloping xml:id
----
Dear colleagues,
Thank you very much for contacting us.
I read the xml:id working draft. Here are some questions.
Q1. When an XML document has an xml:id error, how should fragment identifiers (esp.
bare names) be interpreted?
Q2. When we process non-validated documents that do not have xml:id
errors, are xml:id attributes "DTD-determined IDs"
or "schema-determined IDs" as specified in the XPointer framework?
Q3. Suppose that a document is wholly validated against the associated DTD and this document
does not have xml:id errors. Then, are xml:id attributes "DTD-determined IDs"
or "schema-determined IDs" ?
Q4. Suppose that a document is wholly validated against the associated W3C XML Schema schema
and this document does not have xml:id errors. Then, are xml:id attributes
"DTD-determined IDs" or "schema-determined IDs" ?
Q5. What do you mean by "partially validated"? I do not see its definition in XML 1.0
or W3C XML Schema Part 1.
Q6. Suppose that a document is partially validated against the associated DTD and this
document does not have xml:id errors. Then, are non-validated xml:id attributes
"DTD-determined IDs" or "schema-determined IDs" ?
Q7. Suppose that a document is partially validated against the associated W3C XML Schema
schema and this document does not have xml:id errors. Then, are non-validated xml:id
attributes "DTD-determined IDs" or "schema-determined IDs" ?
Q8. Suppose that a document is invalid against the associated DTD and it does not have
xml:id errors. How should fragment identifiers (esp. bare names) be interpreted?
Q9. Suppose that a document is invalid against the associated W3C XML Schema schema and it
does not have xml:id errors. How should fragment identifiers (esp. bare names) be
interpreted?
I did not mention RELAX NG, since RELAX NG does not have any in-band
mechanisms for associating an XML document with an authoritative RELAX
NG schema. (This omission is deliberate.) I thus believe that we do
not to consider RELAX NG.
Cheers,
Makoto
> The XML Core WG asked me to make you aware of our continuing work on
> an xml:id specification as it may have some impact on RFC 3023. In
> fact, I don't personally believe that it does. A document for which
> xml:id processing has been performed will simply have more attributes
> of type "ID" that can be identified by barename fragment identifiers.
>
> However, if you feel there is any impact that we may have overlooked,
> please let us know. You can find the current editors draft at
>
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xmlid/xml-id.html
>
> Note that a new draft is expected later today.
--
MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <EB2M-MRT@asahi-net.or.jp>
--------------------- Original Message Ends --------------------