W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > October 2004

[MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)] Fw: Re: XML Core WG devloping xml:id

From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 12:35:14 -0400
To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Message-id: <87fz4ay8cd.fsf@nwalsh.com>
Forwarding for Makoto.


attached mail follows:


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 --------------------


Received on Tuesday, 19 October 2004 16:35:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:31 GMT