Re: XML Core WG devloping xml:id

Dear colleagues,

Thank you very much for contacting us.

I read the xml:id working draft.  Here are some questions.

Q1. When an XML document has an xml:id error, how should fragment identifiers (esp. 
    bare names) be interpreted?

Q2. When we process non-validated documents that do not have xml:id 
    errors, are xml:id attributes "DTD-determined IDs"
    or "schema-determined IDs" as specified in the XPointer framework?

Q3. Suppose that a document is wholly validated against the associated DTD and this document  
    does not have xml:id errors.  Then, are xml:id attributes  "DTD-determined IDs"
    or "schema-determined IDs" ?

Q4. Suppose that a document is wholly validated against the associated W3C XML Schema schema
     and this document does not have xml:id errors.  Then, are xml:id attributes  
    "DTD-determined IDs" or "schema-determined IDs" ?

Q5. What do you mean by "partially validated"?  I do not see its definition in XML 1.0 
    or W3C XML Schema Part 1.

Q6. Suppose that a document is partially validated against the associated DTD and this 
    document does not have xml:id errors.  Then, are non-validated xml:id attributes  
    "DTD-determined IDs" or "schema-determined IDs" ?

Q7. Suppose that a document is partially validated against the associated W3C XML Schema 
    schema and this document does not have xml:id errors.  Then, are non-validated xml:id 
    attributes  "DTD-determined IDs" or "schema-determined IDs" ?

Q8. Suppose that a document is invalid against the associated DTD and it does not have 
    xml:id errors.  How should fragment identifiers (esp. bare names) be interpreted?

Q9. Suppose that a document is invalid against the associated W3C XML Schema schema and it 
    does not have xml:id errors.  How should fragment identifiers (esp. bare names) be 
    interpreted?

I did not mention RELAX NG, since RELAX NG does not have any in-band
mechanisms for associating an XML document with an authoritative RELAX
NG schema.  (This omission is  deliberate.)  I thus believe that we do
not to consider RELAX NG.

Cheers,

Makoto

> The XML Core WG asked me to make you aware of our continuing work on
> an xml:id specification as it may have some impact on RFC 3023. In
> fact, I don't personally believe that it does. A document for which
> xml:id processing has been performed will simply have more attributes
> of type "ID" that can be identified by barename fragment identifiers.
> 
> However, if you feel there is any impact that we may have overlooked,
> please let us know. You can find the current editors draft at
> 
>   http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xmlid/xml-id.html
> 
> Note that a new draft is expected later today.

-- 
MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <EB2M-MRT@asahi-net.or.jp>

Received on Friday, 22 October 2004 15:13:49 UTC