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

RE: XML Core WG devloping xml:id

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:18:30 -0400
Message-ID: <F13E1BF26B19BA40AF3C0DE7D4DA0C030105675A@ati-mail01.arbortext.local>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

Just in case anyone's confused, this is the message Makoto
sent six days ago that just came through and that Norm
had forwarded to us earlier.  And Norm has already replied
to this and reflected it (we hope) in his latest draft
that he's also sent to Makoto.

I have not yet seen any reply to Norm's latest draft.

paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)
> Sent: Sunday, 17 October, 2004 4:34
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Cc: Chris Lilley; dan@dankohn.com; MURATA Makoto
> 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>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 22 October 2004 17:03:01 GMT

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