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

RE: lang implementation report

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 11:31:05 -0700
Message-ID: <DF1BAFBC28DF694A823C9A8400E71EA2043B092A@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
Cc: <www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org>

Thanks for the clear statement of your position, which we can provide to
the Director in making the final determination whether the expedient
path we've chosen by putting [language] in XInclude is the right way to
deliver this functionality.  The WG again today confirmed their
viewpoint that it is.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:elharo@metalab.unc.edu]
> Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 3:59 PM
> To: Jonathan Marsh
> Cc: www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org
> Subject: RE: lang implementation report
> At 3:22 PM -0700 7/12/04, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> >We recognize that this is a cost-benefit tradeoff with room for
> >legitimate viewpoints on each side.  We are willing to escalate your
> >dissent through our Proposed Recommendation process if you'd like.
> >Please let us know whether you are satisfied that we've considered
> >point of view adequately, or whether you'd like the Director to
> >this point of contention during his review.
> >
> The practical side I'm OK with. It's a pain in the ass, but it's
> doable which I know because I've done it.
> I am still concerned with the broader theoretical implications of
> this scheme though. In particular,
> 1. Using the XInclude spec to create a new generic Infoset property
> strikes me as very questionable. This should be done with a revision
> to the Infoset spec, not through the back door like this. The
> inclusions property is a little less objectionable because 1) It's
> clearly in scope for the XInclude spec. 2) It's unlikely to be of any
> interest to anyone beyond XInclude. 3) It has no impact on the
> serialized result document.
> 2. The new Infoset property is redundant with the values of the
> attribute properties for xml:lang attributes. This is a bad thing. It
> means they can get out of sync.
> 3. The idea that was expressed recently by Glenn Marcy that attribute
> inheritance somehow went beyond xml:lang, or that it could in certain
> circumstances, I think is actively harmful and not supported by the
> spec.
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-xinclude-
> comments/2004Jul/0003.html>
> I' don't know if this was just a personal opinion or the opinion of
> the working group. If it's just a personal comment, no big deal; but
> if this is the opinion of the working group then I think there's a
> much bigger issue hiding underneath the discussion of this one
> attribute that should be brought to the surface and discussed
> explicitly.
> What I suggest is that the XInclude spec be rewritten so that the
> current behavior remains but is defined purely in terms of the
> appropriate attribute information items. I see no need to introduce a
> new property for the element information item to have the desired
> effect. It would be much simpler and more consistent with existing
> specs and APIs to define this purely in terms of attributes.
> --
>    Elliotte Rusty Harold
>    elharo@metalab.unc.edu
>    Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
>    http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml
> A
Received on Wednesday, 14 July 2004 14:31:06 UTC

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