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

RE: Comment on xmlIDsemantics32

From: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:29:48 -0700
Message-ID: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F806484490@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>
Cc: "Glenn A. Adams" <glenn@xfsi.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>

I'd rather not clutter the TAG list with this but I completely disagree with you and agree with the current wording. 
 
Infoset augmentation even with type annotations does not have to translate into validation (where validation means checking that the target infoset fully conforms to a particular schema). If you limit yourself to W3C XML Schema's notions of typing and validation then this is the case however we are talking about XML here not XML + XSD. 

________________________________

From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Mon 6/16/2003 8:59 AM
To: Chris Lilley
Cc: Dare Obasanjo; Glenn A. Adams; www-tag@w3.org
Subject: Re: Comment on xmlIDsemantics32



>> "Validation and typing are separable but often conflated concepts.
IDness is a consequence of parsing a DTD, not of validation."

This seems too strong.  Certainly there are situations in which typing (or
assignment of defaults, etc.) is best thought of as separate from
validation.  I respect that there are those who believe that the two
notions are often or always better separated.  I'm not sure it's fair to
say that there is concensus on that.  Consider, for example, locally
scoped elements.  Without writing out the whole schema, lets look at an
example of a simple bibliography reference:

<book>
        <isbn>0553213113</isbn>
        <title>Moby Dick</title>
        <author>
                <title>Mr.</title>
                <firstName>Herman</firstName>
                <lastname>Melville</lastName>
        </author>
</book>

Note the two uses of a <title> element.  In W3C XML schema, we might guess
that the <title> that's a child of <book> would be <xsd:string>.  The
<title> that's within the <author> field might better be typed as an
enumeration of {Mr. Mrs., Ms., Dr., etc.}.  Is it not natural in practice
to combine the process of validation, which establishes the context to
determine correctness, with the process of assigning (and if desired
validating against ) the type?

I can see that there are two sides of this issue, but I think it's a bit
too glib just just say that these "ARE separable but often conflated".

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 16 June 2003 12:33:47 UTC

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