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: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 10:52:00 -0400
Message-ID: <9B2DE9094C827E44988F5ADAA6A2C5DA0283A70C@HQ-MAIL9.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jirka Kosek [mailto:jirka@kosek.cz]
> Sent: Thursday, 2011 April 07 9:44
> To: Grosso, Paul
> Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: xml-model comments from ISO member bodies received in DIS
> ballot
> 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?

That would work.  Putting a * (or something like a footnote callout)
on the word "unspecified" and then prefacing the note with that mark
might be even better, but I don't know what's available in ISO format.


Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 14:52:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 7 April 2011 14:52:27 GMT