W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-id@w3.org > January 2005

RE: DTD and Schema Validation Technologies

From: Klotz, Leigh <Leigh.Klotz@pahv.xerox.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 10:47:40 -0800
Message-ID: <0ED0D6D8F7234E44B40AF1110A966BC4014C6BA3@mercury.ADOC.xerox.com>
To: "'Norman Walsh'" <Norman.Walsh@sun.com>, "Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@pahv.xerox.com>
Cc: "'public-xml-id@w3.org'" <public-xml-id@w3.org>

Norm, 
Thank you. Comments below.
I agree to the first issue, make a request to satisfy the second, and agree
to the editorial changes either separately or ad lib without review.
Leigh L. Klotz, Jr.
Xerox Corporation 

/ -----Original Message-----
| From: Norman Walsh [mailto:ndw@nwalsh.com] On Behalf Of Norman Walsh
| Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 9:11 AM
| To: Klotz, Leigh
| Cc: 'public-xml-id@w3.org'
| Subject: Re: DTD and Schema Validation Technologies
| 
| / "Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@pahv.xerox.com> was heard to say:
| | Dear Editors,
| |
| | In xml:id Version 1.0 W3C Working Draft 09 November 2004 in the section
| | "With DTD Validation" [1], the last call working draft says
| |
| |   DTD authors must not declare xml:id as something other than ID. DTD
| | authors who declare attributes other than xml:id as type ID will not
receive
| | the full benefits of xml:id processing. Such attributes may or may not
be
| | recognized processors, including xml:id processors.
| |
| | Similar language is used again in "With Schema Validation" [2].
| |
| | I note that these sections both occur in an appendix titled "Validation
| | Technologies (Non-Normative)" [3], and I think that "must not" is odd to
use
| | inside a Non-Normative appendix.  Furthermore, placing it as a "must
not"
| | constraint on authors rather than a "should not" constrain on authors or
a
| | "must not" constraint on Schemas and DTDs begs semantic questions,
because
| | it is not possible to express conformance requirements on authors.  I
found
| | the switch in topic between the first and second sentences confusing,
and
| | recommend that they be split into two paragraphs.  Finally, I note a
missing
| | word in two sentences in these sections.
| |
| | Details:
| |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | -------
| | For violateion of the prohibition "DTD authors must not declare xml:id
as
| | something other than ID." in [1] and the similar sentence in [2], no
| | consequences are given.  
| | - Are all XML-aware processors expected to note type clashes?
| | = All DTD or Schema aware processors?  
| | - Only xml:id processors?  
| | - Does it result in a non-terminating xml:id error as described in [4]? 
| 
| The Core WG discussed this issue and notes that the consequences are
already
| clearly defined by the second bullet point in Section 4:
| 
|   The declared type of the attribute, if it has one, is "ID". All
|   declarations for xml:id attributes must specify "ID" as the type of
|   the attribute.
| 
| We agree that the use of normative "must not" language in the
| non-normative appendix is an error and will change the text. Our
| anticipated change is simply to make a note for authors that use of
| non-ID types in their schemas will result in xml:id errors and so they
| should be avoided.

Thank you.  I am satisfied that this proposed change would resolve this
issue.

| 
| | It appears that the xml:id Working Draft is asking authors to refrain
from
| | using xsd:ID or ID DTD declarations and to convert documents to using
xml:id
| | exclusively from this day forward.
| | If so, such a recommendation should be included prominently in the
| | Introduction to the document.
| | REQUESTED ACTION:
| | - Clarify whether this Working Draft proposes to deprecate XML Schema
and
| | DTD ID declarations not named "xml:id". 
| 
| I don't believe that any such deprecation is intended, though I note
| that maximum interoperability will be achieved if xml:id is used.

Thank you for the clarification.  Since no existing XML applications can use
"xml:id" and no XML element can have two ID attributes, I am still unclear
on the migration path, and ask the WG to consider adding non-normative
advice about migration paths for existing applications that use xs:ID types
or DTD ID declarations for names that are not spelled "xml:id".  I will take
consideration of this item by the WG as satisfaction of this issue,
regardless of whether consideration results in a change to the document.

| 
| Please let me know if you are satisfied with this resolution to your
| comments. (I will address your editorial comments as well.)
| 
|                                         Be seeing you,
|                                           norm

I agree to address editorial comments separately, or without my review.

| 
| -- 
| Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
| NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
| recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
| Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
| If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
| reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
\
Received on Wednesday, 5 January 2005 18:47:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:53:49 UTC