RE: xml-model comments from ISO member bodies received in DIS ballot



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jirka Kosek [mailto:jirka@kosek.cz]
> Sent: Thursday, 2011 April 07 9:44
> To: Grosso, Paul
> Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: xml-model comments from ISO member bodies received in DIS
> ballot
> 
> Grosso, Paul wrote:
> 
> > Re JP-002, I looked at our Note again too, and I think we should
> > make it clearer than just a font change.  Perhaps we should put
> > "[unspecified]" (that is, in brackets) as well as the font change.
> 
> Personally I found putting square brackets around it even more
> confusing
> -- it looks like some important piece of syntax to me.
> 
> If there is ambiguity (personally I'm not convinced there is) wouldn't
> it be better to put note below table saying eg:
> 
> Value "unspecified" in the second or third column of the table
> indicates
> that the corresponding pseudo-attribute is not specified on xml-model
> processing instruction.
> 
> What do you think?

That would work.  Putting a * (or something like a footnote callout)
on the word "unspecified" and then prefacing the note with that mark
might be even better, but I don't know what's available in ISO format.

paul

Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 14:52:26 UTC