RE: [2.1] restricting redefinition of DTD internal subset

Matt,

Today was the first time since Nov 11 that the XML Core WG
had a telcon (the telcon of the 16th was cancelled due to
the XML Conference that week).

Regarding:

> "Since the DTD for a document consists of both the external
> and internal subset, a conforming document must not include
> an internal subset when referencing the VoiceXML 2.1 DTD."

the XML Core WG has no objections* to the VoiceXML spec forbidding
use of the internal subset provided it is not suggested in any way
that a document with an internal subset is not well-formed XML.
That is, it must be made clear that a document with an internal
subset does not conform to the VoiceXML spec (even though such
does conform to the XML spec).

Therefore, you should probably replace in the above text 
"a conforming document" with something like "a document 
conforming to the VoiceXML Recommendation".

paul

* Actually, several of us on the XML Core WG do object to 
applications forbidding the internal subset since that is 
subsetting XML (support for the internal subset being a 
required part of XML) which we would prefer not to do. 
However, since we've already lost this battle with SOAP, 
none of us is willing to make an official objection.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Oshry [mailto:matto@tellme.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, 2005 November 16 11:52
> To: ht@w3.org; plh@w3.org
> Cc: Grosso, Paul; Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM; w3c-voice-wg@w3.org
> Subject: FW: [2.1] restricting redefinition of DTD internal subset
> 
> Henry, Philippe,
> 
> Would one of you be willing to help the VBWG bring the issue below to
> resolution?
> 
> Regards,
> Matt Oshry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Oshry 
> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 2:34 PM
> To: 'pgrosso@ptc.com'; 'Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM'
> Cc: 'w3c-voice-wg@w3.org'
> Subject: [2.1] restricting redefinition of DTD internal subset
> 
> Hi, Paul and Norm,
> 
> When last we corresponded, you helped the Voice Browser WG (VBWG) to
> resolve an issue with the use of processing instructions to define the
> security policy on an XML document.
> 
> Having moved beyond that issue, I'm currently editing the VoiceXML 2.1
> CR so that the VBWG can transition the spec to PR status. I am hoping
> you and your WG could help us (peacefully) resolve the 
> following issue.
> 
> In [1], Bjoern Hoehrmann points out a loophole in the VoiceXML 2.0 and
> VoiceXML 2.1 specifications having to do with redefinition within the
> DTD subset. In F1 of VoiceXML 2.0 [2] and C1 of VoiceXML 2.1 [3] we
> stated
> 
> "The DTD subset must not be used to override any parameter entities in
> the DTD."
> 
> This, as Bjoern points out, does not disallow overriding of attribute
> definitions. What we would like to say in VoiceXML 2.1 is more akin to
> SMIL 2.1 [4]:
> 
> "If a document contains this declaration, it must be a valid XML
> document. Note that this implies that extensions to the syntax defined
> in the DTD are not allowed."
> 
> The VBWG would like to replace the above text in VoiceXML 2.1 with the
> following:
> 
> "Since the DTD for a document consists of both the external and
internal
> subset, a conforming document must not include an internal subset when
> referencing the VoiceXML 2.1 DTD."
> 
> You can see this in context at [5].
> 
> Bjoern indicated in [6] that he would be willing to accept 
> our proposed
> change upon XML Core WG review.
> 
> Would you and XML Core be willing to weigh in on this?
> 
> Matt Oshry
> Chief Editor, VoiceXML 2.1
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2005AprJun/0088.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/voicexml20/#dmlAConformance
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/voicexml21/#sec-conform-doc
> [4]
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/PR-SMIL2-20050927/smil21-profile.htm
> l#SMILProf
> ileNS-ConformingDocuments
> [5]
> http://www.w3.org/Voice/Group/2005/voicexml21-wd/voicexml21-di
> ff.html#se
> c-conform-doc
> [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2005OctDec/0040.html
>

Received on Wednesday, 23 November 2005 17:34:35 UTC