W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: VoiceXML2: Examples

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 09:55:55 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030217093311.025ec9d0@pop.iamdigex.net>
To: Max Froumentin <mf@w3.org>, www-voice@w3.org

At 09:17 AM 2003-02-17, Max Froumentin wrote:
>schemaLocation ... suggests that the declaration is mandatory (which the 
>XMLSchema
>refutes), or even that the use of the schema is.

May I take exception to this remark.

Documenting the schema location only says that it is available, not that
its processing is required.

SchemaLocation is nothing more than satisfying "Honor thy Father and thy
Mother" from the Ten Commandmandments.

The schema is the mother of this document instance as the DNS-denominated
site is the father.  Honoring the mother in this way is necessary to facilitate
the joint processing with the schema in the minority of cases where that
is required.  But it is required sometimes.

This is the reasoning behind the checkpoint in the [no status, work in
progress] XML Accessibility Guidelines on this matter.

http://www.w3.org/TR/xag#cp4_2

One way to clearly satisfy the urgings of this checkpoint would be that, if
a schema is available over the Web, every instance conforming to that schema
*does include* a working value of xsi:schemaLocation explicitly.

For the readability concerns, specifications should feel free to use
fragments in inline examples and offer a few fully realized cumulative
examples in appendices.  One can also use style differences to
emphasize a fragment embedded in a longer run of code.

Al


>Hi,
>
>I would like to object that all the examples in VoiceXML2 come with an
>XML declaration and a schemaLocation attribute. It makes the language
>appear unneccesarily complex. The Hello World example would be much
>simpler as:
>
><vxml xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/vxml" version="2.0">
>   <form>
>     <block>Hello World!</block>
>   </form>
></vxml>
>
>schemaLocation bothers me more than by just making the examples hard to
>read. It suggests that the declaration is mandatory (which the XMLSchema
>refutes), or even that the use of the schema is.
>
>--
>Max.
Received on Monday, 17 February 2003 09:56:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 October 2006 12:48:56 GMT