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

[QA Review] xml:id Version 1.0

From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:06:43 -0500
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Cc: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>, public-xml-id@w3.org
Message-id: <878y6etz58.fsf_-_@nwalsh.com>
/ Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org> was heard to say:
| I was wondering if you had seen as well
| http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-id/2005Jan/0012

No, I had not. And it took me a *a long time* to figure out why. For
one thing, it never arrived in my personal mailbox for no reason that
I can explain, but then it's also a "follow-up" to a message you posted on
the first working draft and my issue tracking tool suppressed that
thread because it wasn't from LC1. Sigh.

Looking at the message:

> Dear XML WG,
> Le 04 août 2004, à 17:43, Karl Dubost a écrit :
> > This is a QA review of
> > 	xml:id Version 1.0
> > 	W3C Working Draft 7 April 2004
> > 	http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xml-id-20040407/
> My initial review of xml:id
> > http://www.w3.org/QA/2004/08/xml-id-qa-review
> We have discussed [1] in the QA WG about one of the Requirement, that I 
> credited successful, but some people in the QA WG thinks that it 
> doesn't meet the criteria.
> Looking at
> 	http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xml-id-20041109/
> Let's say that the point Requirement 2.2.A [2] is then failed
> 	"Identify who or what will implement the specification."
> To meet the criteria of this requirement in the specification, please 
> do this modification to your document following the techniques:
> [[[
> Give the classes of products in the specification:
> 	1.  	 Think about all the types of products or services that will 
> implement this technology, group those that are similar and/or 
> basically achieve the same purpose, and determine the generic name for 
> the group.  This would be the class of product.
> 	2.  	List these classes of products in the specification.
> 	3.  	Describe them as part of the scope.
> ]]] - [3]

The CR draft clearly identifies that it is the 'xml:id processor' that
implements this specification. It goes on to say:

"This specification defines xml:id processing, but it is up to the
application to determine when such processing occurs. Users of
applications that provide facilities for modifying XML documents may
reasonably expect xml:id processing to occur whenever a change is made
to an ID value."

I believe that that satisfies the issue you identified above.

> Then as a suggestion for your prose
> =================================================================
> 1. Introduction
> 	1.1 Scope of xml:id
> 	Classes of Products
>         Here is the list of classes of products for which this 
> specification defines conformance requirements.
>         * XML Processors
> 			[Prose explaining what's an XML processors]
>         * DTD and XML Schemas (non required but encouraged)
> 			[Prose explaining why]
>         * Author of XML documents (non required but encouraged)
> 			[Prose explaining why]
> =================================================================
> What about XML schemas and DTD authoring tools? or more that you might 
> think of?
> That would make a more satisfying specification.
> 3.2.B [4] is not met as well
> 	"Indicate which conformance requirements are mandatory, which are 
> recommended and which are optional."
> 	In the conformance section [5] of xml:id, it's very hard to know what 
> are the strict requirement for an XML processors with regards to 
> xml:id. That would be good to explicit it in the conformance section, 
> then the implementers will have no doubts about it.
> 	For now it's lost in the prose of the document.

I believe the conformance section now clearly identifies which
requirements are manditory and which are not:

"Conformance to constraints that \u201cmust\u201d be assured is
mandatory. It is recommended that applications assure the other
constraints as well. This specification defines no simply optional

> 4.3.A [6] is not met
> I encourage you first to read this message from Dave Marston, IBM [7]
> Suggestion
> =================================
> xxx. Extensibility of xml:id
> [Write prose here if you expect people to extend the behaviors already 
> defined in the specification, if not say so. xml:id is not extensible 
> and as to be implemented as it is.]
> =================================

This is now addressed by Section 8 of the CR draft.

I believe that we have addressed all of the issues raised in this message,
please let me know if you agree.

> [1] http://www.w3.org/mid/
> [2] 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/#implement-principle
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/#implement-tech
> [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/#req-opt-conf
> [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xml-id-20041109/#xmlid-conformance
> [6] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/#extensibility
> [7] 
> http://www.w3.org/mid/OFAAA57F61.7560A892-ON85256F80.00532649@lotus.com

                                        Be seeing you,

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 Thursday, 27 January 2005 20:07:10 UTC

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