W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-id@w3.org > August 2008

RE: RELAX NG and xml:id

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:49:27 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3020C5CAD2F@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: "Murata Makoto" <EB2M-MRT@asahi-net.or.jp>, <public-xml-id@w3.org>
Cc: <Michael.Brauer@sun.com>, <eb2m-mrt@j.asahi-net.or.jp>

Hello Makoto,

The XML Core WG discussed your email during today's telcon,
and the WG is basically in agreement with Daniel's response at

The crux of our opinion is that xml:id handling is done at parse 
time and any RelaxNG validation is done on top of that and doesn't 
modify the infoset so there is no risk of clash. We don't see any
incompatibility with RELAX NG and xml:id.

Please feel free to continue this discussion if you still have concerns.


Paul Grosso
for the XML Core WG

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-id-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-xml-id-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Murata Makoto
> Sent: Wednesday, 2008 August 13 5:12
> To: public-xml-id@w3.org
> Cc: Michael.Brauer@sun.com; eb2m-mrt@j.asahi-net.or.jp
> Subject: RELAX NG and xml:id
> Dear colleagues,
> I have a question about interactions of xml:id and 
> validation.
> Consider a RELAX NG schema that defines xml:id as xsd:NCName rather
> than xsd:ID and an DTD-free instance valid against this schema.  The
> schema does NOT use the RELAX NG DTD compatibility specification.
> Since RELAX NG validation does not change the information set, 
> the [attribute type] property of the attribute xml:id is unknown.
> I believe that there is nothing wrong in applying "ID attribute
> normalization" and "ID type assignment" to xml:id in this instance
> document.  In my understanding, xml:id tries to separate ID processing
> from validation as much as possible.
> However, Section 4 of the xml:id recommendation says:
> 	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.
> Does this sentence prohibit my scenario?  The pattern for xml:id 
> specifies xsd:NCName rather than xsd:ID.
> Furthermore, what will happen if the xml:id attribute is validated
> against wildcards?  For example: 
>   anyAtt = attribute * { xsd:string }.
> Such wildcards are useful when we would like to allow foreign elements
> to contain any attribute.   Since the RELAX NG DTD compatibility 
> specification allows the use of xsd:ID only when we precisely know 
> the element name as well as the attribute name, we cannot 
> have: 
>   anyElement = element * {attribute xml:id {xsd:ID}?, anyElement*}
> If the "anyAtt" define statement shown above is what you mean
> "declaration", we cannot allow xml:id within foreign elements 
> without giving up RELAX NG validation. 
> Cheers,
> Makoto
Received on Wednesday, 13 August 2008 16:50:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:53:50 UTC