W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > February 2010

More xml-model comments

From: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:49:01 +0100
Message-ID: <4B72D56D.4020305@kosek.cz>
To: "public-xml-core-wg@w3.org" <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Hi folks,

bellow I'm forwarding some comments from MSMQ (with his persmission)
together with some my remarks.

There seems to be at least three issues to solve in xml-model (including
also comments recieved on xml-editor list). As I'm new to this group --
does this working group uses some system for tracking issues or do just
editors keep their notes? I would be happy to collect and track issues
on xml-model, but I would like to do it in a manner to which this WG is
used to.



>On 31 Jan 2010, at 16:32 , Jirka Kosek wrote:
>> C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote:
>> Can I suggest that it would
>> be better if the spec did define the relation between the
>> semantics of xsd:schemaLocation and the PI?
> You mean something less vague then:
> "In particular, this specification does not define the interaction of
> xml-model processing instructions with xsi:schemaLocation and
> xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation attributes which provide hints for
> locating schema in W3C XML Schema. Applications supporting both
> xml-model processing instructions and
> xsi:schemaLocation/xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation attributes may  
> provide
> means for specifying which information takes precedence."
> If so, do you have any specific requirements about what should be
> specified there?
>> Also, experience with DTDs suggests to me that it would be a
>> good idea if the document said very explicitly that the
>> presence of such a PI is *not* in itself an instruction to
>> any processor to validate the document, and *not* a statement
>> that the document is not to be processed without validation.
>> It is a declarative statement of the relation between the
>> document and some (external) schema.
> Indeed that was intention, but you are right we can be more explicit  
> there.
>> I don't see a place where the PI says what schema language or
>> flavor or religion is involved; when multiple schema languages
>> use application/xml for their schema documents, won't that cause
>> confusion?
> We already know about this problem. It will be addressed in the next
> draft. Probably we will introduce new pseudo-attribute which will hold
> namespace of schema language used.
>> And I wonder if it would not be better to specify that
>> additional pseudo-attributes ARE legal on the PI, and should
>> be ignored (except for a pseudo-attribute of minVersion="xxx"
>> with xxx > 1.0, which should signal a 1.0 processor of
>> the PI to ignore the PI -- or perhaps some form of mustUnderstand).
> Hmm, I don't think that relatively primitive xml-model needs  
> versioning.
> But additional pseudo-attributes should be allowed -- in the future  
> new
> schema langauges can emerge and there can be demand for schema  
> specific
> parameters like phase for Schematron.
> Many thanks for your valuable comments,
> 				Jirka
>>* C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, Black Mesa Technologies LLC
>>* http://www.blackmesatech.com
>>* http://cmsmcq.com/mib
>>* http://balisage.net

  Jirka Kosek      e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz      http://xmlguru.cz
       Professional XML consulting and training services
  DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
 OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member

Received on Wednesday, 10 February 2010 15:49:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:41 UTC