More xml-model comments

Hi folks,

bellow I'm forwarding some comments from MSMQ (with his persmission)
together with some my remarks.

There seems to be at least three issues to solve in xml-model (including
also comments recieved on xml-editor list). As I'm new to this group --
does this working group uses some system for tracking issues or do just
editors keep their notes? I would be happy to collect and track issues
on xml-model, but I would like to do it in a manner to which this WG is
used to.

Thanks,

				Jirka

>On 31 Jan 2010, at 16:32 , Jirka Kosek wrote:
>> C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote:
>> Can I suggest that it would
>> be better if the spec did define the relation between the
>> semantics of xsd:schemaLocation and the PI?
>
> You mean something less vague then:
>
> "In particular, this specification does not define the interaction of
> xml-model processing instructions with xsi:schemaLocation and
> xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation attributes which provide hints for
> locating schema in W3C XML Schema. Applications supporting both
> xml-model processing instructions and
> xsi:schemaLocation/xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation attributes may  
> provide
> means for specifying which information takes precedence."
>
> If so, do you have any specific requirements about what should be
> specified there?
>
>> Also, experience with DTDs suggests to me that it would be a
>> good idea if the document said very explicitly that the
>> presence of such a PI is *not* in itself an instruction to
>> any processor to validate the document, and *not* a statement
>> that the document is not to be processed without validation.
>> It is a declarative statement of the relation between the
>> document and some (external) schema.
>
> Indeed that was intention, but you are right we can be more explicit  
> there.
>
>> I don't see a place where the PI says what schema language or
>> flavor or religion is involved; when multiple schema languages
>> use application/xml for their schema documents, won't that cause
>> confusion?
>
> We already know about this problem. It will be addressed in the next
> draft. Probably we will introduce new pseudo-attribute which will hold
> namespace of schema language used.
>
>> And I wonder if it would not be better to specify that
>> additional pseudo-attributes ARE legal on the PI, and should
>> be ignored (except for a pseudo-attribute of minVersion="xxx"
>> with xxx > 1.0, which should signal a 1.0 processor of
>> the PI to ignore the PI -- or perhaps some form of mustUnderstand).
>
> Hmm, I don't think that relatively primitive xml-model needs  
> versioning.
> But additional pseudo-attributes should be allowed -- in the future  
> new
> schema langauges can emerge and there can be demand for schema  
> specific
> parameters like phase for Schematron.
>
> Many thanks for your valuable comments,
>
> 				Jirka
>>--
>>****************************************************************
>>* C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, Black Mesa Technologies LLC
>>* http://www.blackmesatech.com
>>* http://cmsmcq.com/mib
>>* http://balisage.net
>>****************************************************************




-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
  Jirka Kosek      e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz      http://xmlguru.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------
       Professional XML consulting and training services
  DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
------------------------------------------------------------------
 OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member
------------------------------------------------------------------