See also: IRC log
<johnarwe_> http://www.w3.org/XML/2008/06/sml-bug5542.xml
kumar: I will start email discussion for 5680
ginny: Let us discuss 5760.
... we should use 'target' to mean 0 or 1 element.
... and fix other text to match this definition.
... do others agree with this concept?
kumar, kirk, john: yes
ginny: I will write a proposal for changes based on the concept.
<johnarwe_> proposal: editor's draft 4.3.1 2 b currently reads
<johnarwe_> A document is obtained by dereferencing the URI reference ignoring any fragment component, using the appropriate operation defined for the URI scheme used in that URI reference. If it does not retrieve a document in the current model, the SML URI Reference Scheme instance is unresolved.
<johnarwe_> change to
<johnarwe_> A document is obtained by one of the following methods. If a document in the current model does not result, the SML URI Reference Scheme instance is unresolved. (2.b.1) by recognizing that the relative reference is a same-document reference (2.b.2) by dereferencing the URI reference ignoring any fragment component, using the appropriate operation defined for the URI scheme used in that URI reference.
<johnarwe_> Kumar notes that 2nd proposed sentence could be part of 2.b.2 , Arwe agrees
john: does everyone agree with the proposed text above?
kumar, kirk, ginny: yes
<johnarwe_> next piece of 5707, smlif 5.3.4 1 a
<johnarwe_> proposal: change from: If UR contains only a fragment component,
<johnarwe_> to: If UR is a same-document reference,
john: does everyone agree with the proposed text above?
kumar, kirk, ginny: yes
resolution: mark editorial. fix as proposed in comment# 4
resolution: proposal in comment# 1 rejected. ginny to make the editorial changes based on the concept target== 0 or 1 element. mark needsReview after changes.
kirk: currently the set of rules
aimed at scheme writers do not include information that says
how that scheme behaves in the sml-if context.
... we should add such info.
ginny: I am not convinced that we should change the SML spec to add this text.
kumar: we do not define such rules even for the SML URI scheme therefore we should avoid defining such text for user defined schemes.
john: we could add such text to sml-if.
ginny: but that text should not be called 'requirements on user defined schemes' because then we would need to change the sml spec.
<johnarwe_> proposal to hack at
<johnarwe_> f2f consensus
<johnarwe_> SMLIF 4.5 item 4
<johnarwe_> The SML-IF document may use references schemes that do not use target-complete identifiers. In addition to the requirements imposed by SML on reference scheme definitions, SML-IF imposes additional requirements on references schemes that do not use target-complete identifiers in order to make them useful in the context of SML-IF [5.3.4 discussion of category 3].
<johnarwe_> SMLIF 5.3.4 end, after category 1 & 2 URI processing
<johnarwe_> To process a URI reference UR that is within category #3 above, a set of steps corresponding to those described above for categories #1 and #2 MUST be defined as part of the reference scheme definition.
resolution: the text above is approved. add the text to appropriate sections in smlif. mark editorial.
<johnarwe_> proposal as discussed: smlif 6.4.1 final sentence
<johnarwe_> from: implementation-dependent and hence outside the scope of
<johnarwe_> this specification.
<johnarwe_> to: impl-defined.
<johnarwe_> chg also reqd in 6.1
<Kirk2> Kirk2 is Kirk
<johnarwe_> f2f consensus
<johnarwe_> item 1 - covered by 5635
<johnarwe_> item 2 - agree with proposal in this bug, no changes
<johnarwe_> item 3 - agree with proposal in this bug
<johnarwe_> item 4 - agree with proposal, change both sections, amended text
<johnarwe_> from: implementation-dependent and hence outside the scope of this specification.
<johnarwe_> to : implementation-defined.
<johnarwe_> item 5 - leave as impl-defined
<johnarwe_> Working group chose to err, if an error has been made, on the side of requiring the behavior to be documented.
resolution: accept item# 2 (retain current uses of impl. defined), accept item #3, accept item# 4 (+remove ...hence outside...), accept item# 5
<johnarwe_> Working group chose to come down on the side of requiring the behavior to be documented.
resolution: mark editorial
<johnarwe_> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2007/xml/sml/build/sml.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8
<johnarwe_> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2007/xml/sml/build/sml-if.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8
<johnarwe_> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5522
john: we made the change Henry requested.
henry: I am happy with the fix.
<johnarwe_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Jun/0081.html
<johnarwe_> Jan 4.3.1.1 http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-sml-20080114/#SMLXPath1_Scheme
resolution: remove decided, add reviewerSatisfied
henry: I am happy with the fix.
resolution: remove decided, add reviewerSatisfied
henry: Given the overall architecture, depending on literal _or_ implicit sml:ref to
signal the _existence_ of an SML reference is reasonable, so I agree that the
xlink: href issue can be dealt with separately, and I'm happy for this bug to be
<scribe> closed.
henry I'm happy that the additional text in Appendix C removes the apparent contradiction.
resolution: add reviewerSatisfied
<johnarwe_> Excerpt from current XPointer Framework Rec: 3.2 Shorthand Pointer
<johnarwe_> A shorthand pointer, formerly known as a barename, consists of an NCName alone. It identifies at most one element in the resource's information set; specifically, the first one (if any) in document order that has a matching NCName as an identifier. The identifiers of an element are determined as follows:
<johnarwe_> 1. If an element information item has an attribute information item among its [attributes] that is a schema-determined ID, then it is identified by the value of that attribute information item's [schema normalized value] property;
<johnarwe_> 2. If an element information item has an element information item among its [children] that is a schema-determined ID, then it is identified by the value of that element information item's [schema normalized value] property;
<johnarwe_> 3. If an element information item has an attribute information item among its [attributes] that is a DTD-determined ID, then it is identified by the value of that attribute information item's [normalized value] property.
<johnarwe_> 4. An element information item may also be identified by an externally-determined ID value.
<johnarwe_> If no element information item is identified by a shorthand pointer's NCName, the pointer is in error.
henry: So, we end up with two remaining points here, possibly also addressed elsewhere.
Wrt the media type issue, I am happy that the current state of the text clarifies that this is effectively a coherence check on SML URI Reference scheme references.
Wrt the fragid issue, the thing I really care about is barenames, I'll accede to closing this issue (5545) and make a final comment about this concern under 5543.
<scribe> ACTION: john to ask henry to describe what processing a minimally conforming xml processor must do wrt ID processing. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-sml-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-200 - Ask henry to describe what processing a minimally conforming xml processor must do wrt ID processing. [on John Arwe - due 2008-07-01].
resolution: add reviewerSatisfied
henry: I am happy that the text which has been added addresses my concern
resolution: mark as reviewerSatisfied
henry: I am happy with the resolution.
resolution: mark as reviewerSatisfied
<johnarwe_> http://www.w3.org/XML/2008/06/sml-bug5542.xml
<ht> What was my bug-to-close as I left?
<johnarwe_> 5523
<johnarwe_> text from infoset rec
<johnarwe_> Base URIs
<johnarwe_> Several information items have a [base URI] or [declaration base URI] property. These are computed according to [XML Base]. Note that retrieval of a resource may involve redirection at the parser level (for example, in an entity resolver) or below; in this case the base URI is the final URI used to retrieve the resource after all redirection.
<johnarwe_> The value of these properties does not reflect any URI escaping that may be required for retrieval of the resource, but it may include escaped characters if these were specified in the document, or returned by a server in the case of redirection.
<johnarwe_> In some cases (such as a document read from a string or a pipe) the rules in [XML Base] may result in a base URI being application dependent. In these cases this specification does not define the value of the [base URI] or [declaration base URI] property.
<johnarwe_> When resolving relative URIs the [base URI] property should be used in preference to the values of xml:base attributes; they may be inconsistent in the case of Synthetic Infosets.
<johnarwe_> schema 1.0 refers to 2001 infoset spec which says: Base URIs
<johnarwe_> Several information items have a [base URI] property. This is computed according to [XML Base]. Note that retrieval of a resource may involve redirection at the parser level (for example, in an entity resolver) or below; in this case the base URI is the final URI used to retrieve the resource after all redirection.
<johnarwe_> proposed normative addition to sml 4.1.1: It is implementation-defined whether non-validating SML processors (SML processors that are not also SML validators) use the XML Infoset [XML Information Set] or the Post Schema Validation Infoset (PSVI) [XML Schema Structures] for SML reference identification.
resolution: split the note in 4.1.1. Add the proposed text above between the 2 notes. mark editorial.
<johnarwe_> going into bug, ok? F2F consensus: add following text to 4.1.1 SML Reference, as normative, between existing Notes 1 and 2.
<johnarwe_> It is implementation-defined whether non-validating model processors that are not also model validators use the XML Infoset [XML Information Set] or the Post Schema Validation Infoset (PSVI) [XML Schema Structures] for SML reference identification.
<johnarwe_> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#concepts-conformance
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/
<johnarwe_> 5653, comment 2, part (2), revised proposal
<johnarwe_> from: assessed by a conforming schema-aware processor
<johnarwe_> to: from: assessed by a conforming schema aware processor [link to XML Schema Structures 2.4]
<johnarwe_> revised proposal from Ginny: In each instance document in the model, the [validity] property of the root element and all of its attributes and descendants MUST NOT be "invalid" when schema validity is assessed with respect to the referenced XML Schema documents in the model's definition documents. [XML Schema Structures]
<johnarwe_> revised defs: SML-IF Producer
<johnarwe_> A SML-IF Producer is a program that generates a SML-IF Document from a SML
<johnarwe_> model [Conformance].
<johnarwe_> SML-IF Consumer
<johnarwe_> A SML-IF Consumer is a program that processes a SML-IF Document using, in
<johnarwe_> whole or part, semantics defined by this specification. It MAY perform
<johnarwe_> interchange set validation [Conformance].
<johnarwe_> SML-IF Producer
<johnarwe_> A SML-IF Producer is a program that generates a SML-IF Document from a SML
<johnarwe_> model.
<johnarwe_> SML-IF Consumer
<johnarwe_> A SML-IF Consumer is a program that processes a SML-IF Document using, in
<johnarwe_> whole or part, semantics defined by this specification. It may or may not perform
<johnarwe_> interchange set validation.
<johnarwe_> The editors may wish to search for unqualified "consumer" uses that readers
<johnarwe_> would find ambiguous. There are at least a few unqualified uses in normative
<johnarwe_> sections of the current editor's draft.
<ginny> When performing interchange model validation over the SML model packaged in an
<ginny> SML-IF instance, an SML-IF consumer must draw associations between XML Schema definition documents and
<ginny> instance documents, both to completely validate XML Schema
<ginny> documents themselves and to establish the schema-validity of the instance
<ginny> documents.
resolution: mark editorial, does not need review
Last Scribe Date Member Name Regrets pending 2008-04-17 McCarthy, Julia 2008-05-22 Lynn, James 2008-06-05 Gao, Sandy 2008-06-23 Smith, Virginia 2008-06-23 Wilson, Kirk 2008-06-24 Kumar, Pandit Exempt Arwe, John Exempt Dublish, Pratul Exempt MSM Exempt PH