W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2003

Re: Comment on xmlIDsemantics32

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 21:26:31 +0200
Message-ID: <20539245624.20030614212631@w3.org>
To: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com>
CC: www-tag@w3.org, "Glenn A. Adams" <glenn@xfsi.com>

On Saturday, June 14, 2003, 8:24:47 PM, Dare wrote:

DO> I can think of several others, here's one 
DO>  http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#key-vn 
DO> In fact the entire "What's the Problem" section seems
DO> innappropriate when taken within the context of the entire XML
DO> family of technologies instead of just the XML 1.0 recommendation.

Although the original question is framed in terms of 'when there is no
DTD/DTD is not fetched'.

DO> For example the statement below is false when it comes to W3C XML
DO> Schema
DO> "Validation and typing are separable but often conflated concepts.
DO> IDness is a consequence of parsing a DTD, not of validation."

The first statement is not false, but I agree that XML Schema perpetuates
the conflation. I agree that the second statement should have "In XML
1.0" prepended.

> Throughout this specification, [Definition:] the word valid and its
> derivatives are used to refer to clause 1 above, the determination
> of local schema-validity.

> Throughout this specification, [Definition:] the word assessment is
> used to refer to the overall process of local validation,
> schema-validity assessment and infoset augmentation.

The use of schema purely for infoset augmentation without any
validation does not seem to be directly addressed.

DO> ________________________________

DO> From: www-tag-request@w3.org on behalf of Chris Lilley
DO> Sent: Sat 6/14/2003 10:38 AM
DO> To: www-tag@w3.org; Glenn A. Adams
DO> Subject: Re: Comment on xmlIDsemantics32

DO> On Saturday, June 14, 2003, 4:45:00 PM, Glenn wrote:

GAA>> In the section "What is the problem?" of [1], I suggest scoping the
GAA>> statements that are made to the XML definition of validity, and not
GAA>> an absolute definition.

GAA>> For example, in the first paragraph after the example, the phrase
GAA>> "is not valid and cannot be validated" is true only with respect
GAA>> to the XML specification's definition of valid and validatable
GAA>> in the use of an XML DTD. The statement is not necessarily true
GAA>> in contexts that don't soley depend on the XML definition of validity.

DO> What other definitions were you thinking of?

GAA>> Regards,
GAA>> Glenn

GAA>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/xmlIDsemantics-32.html

DO> --
DO>  Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org

 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Saturday, 14 June 2003 15:26:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:38 UTC