W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > April 2011

Re: xml-model comments from ISO member bodies received in DIS ballot

From: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 16:43:51 +0200
Message-ID: <4D9DCDA7.7040906@kosek.cz>
To: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>
CC: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Grosso, Paul wrote:

> Re JP-002, I looked at our Note again too, and I think we should
> make it clearer than just a font change.  Perhaps we should put
> "[unspecified]" (that is, in brackets) as well as the font change.

Personally I found putting square brackets around it even more confusing
-- it looks like some important piece of syntax to me.

If there is ambiguity (personally I'm not convinced there is) wouldn't
it be better to put note below table saying eg:

Value "unspecified" in the second or third column of the table indicates
that the corresponding pseudo-attribute is not specified on xml-model
processing instruction.

What do you think?

				Jirka

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
  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 Thursday, 7 April 2011 14:44:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 7 April 2011 14:44:13 GMT