W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org > July 2004

RE: XML Schema WG Comments on Last Call Draft

From: Biron,Paul V <Paul.V.Biron@kp.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 15:54:29 -0700
Message-Id: <8E9F0028F5955844899380433C60E39902A0D1C6@cscrdemsg001.crdc.kp.org>
To: www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org
Cc: w3c-xml-schema-ig <w3c-xml-schema-ig@w3.org>
Thanx for getting back to us...but it was not necessary.  As we said in when we made the suggestion: the Schema WG does not feel strongly about this but thought it worth mentioning in case you did.  We do, however, reserve the right to say "We told you so" if implementers are confused :-)

pvb (for the XML Schema WG)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Marsh [mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 1:46 PM
> To: Biron,Paul V; www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org
> Cc: w3c-xml-schema-ig
> Subject: RE: XML Schema WG Comments on Last Call Draft
> Thanks for the comment, and sorry to take so long to respond.
> The use of the term "already" in this instance doesn't seem 
> to the WG to be terribly misleading in the case you've 
> pointed out.  In this case, willful misinterpretation might 
> imply that infinite recursion should be used to create a list 
> of the include history that is infinitely long, but we don't 
> feel implementers are likely to get this wrong.
> We don't plan to make a change at this point.  If you 
> disagree, please let us know promptly.
> ________________________________________
> From: www-xml-xinclude-comments-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-xml-xinclude-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf 
> Of Biron,Paul V
> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 11:58 AM
> To: 'www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org'
> Cc: w3c-xml-schema-ig; Jonathan Marsh
> Subject: Re: XML Schema WG Comments on Last Call Draft
> > From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
> > Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 13:19:48 -0800 
> > To: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org> 
> > Cc: "Ashok Malhotra" <ashokma@microsoft.com>, 
> <www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org>, <w3c-xml-schema-ig@w3.org> 
> > 
> > The XML Core WG has accepted your request to provide a place for the
> > xi:include elements in the resulting infoset.  Here is a 
> draft of the 
> > significant part of the text I'm proposing to replace the Boolean 
> > [included] property: 
> > 
> > --------------
> > The inclusion history of each top-level included item is 
> recorded in the 
> > extension property [include history]. The [include history] 
> property is 
> > a list of element information items, representing the xi:include 
> > elements for recursive levels of inclusion. If an [include history] 
> > property already appears on a top-level included item, the 
> xi:include 
> > element information item is prepended to the list. If no [include 
> > history] property exists, then this property is added with 
> the single 
> > value of the xi:include element information item. 
> > -------------- 
> > 
> > We note that we don't expect to see implementation fully 
> exposing this
> > property in our upcoming CR, but that's no worse a match 
> with current 
> > implementations than the previous [included] property. 
> Thank you for your reply to our further request [1], we 
> appologize for the delay in responding.  The working has 
> discussed this response and are happy with the result. Some 
> members of the WG noted, however, that the term "already" in 
> the sentence "If an [include history] property already 
> appears on a top-level included item..." above implies a time 
> axis in the construction of the result infoset.  That is, if 
> a includes b includes c, which include happens first?  We 
> appologize if this aspect is covered elsewhere in the 
> XInclude CR [2] but a quick perusal of section 4 Processing 
> Model [3] did not turn anything up.  
> While it is not necessary to address the above in order to 
> satisfy the Schema WG in response to our previous comments 
> you might want to consider addressing it to prevent future 
> questions of this nature. thank you, 
> pvb (for the XML Schema WG) 
> [1] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-xinclude-comments/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-xinclude-20040413 
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-xinclude-20040413/#processing 
p.s. For the record, our original comment on the Last Call is here [4] and your response to that comment is here [5] 
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-xinclude-comments/2004Jan/0015.html 
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-xinclude-comments/2004Feb/0011.html 
Received on Thursday, 8 July 2004 19:02:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:57 UTC