Re: Updated XInclude draft

Paul Grosso <paul@paulgrosso.name> writes:
> Under section 3.1, under href, second Note, the
> latest draft deletes a sentence about sub resources.
>
> I'm not sure why it is deleted. I could see changing
> "For parse="xml" inclusions..." to "When the parse attribute
> specifies XML processing...", but I'm not sure why the
> whole sentence is deleted.
>
> Regardless, if we delete that sentence, then I wonder how
> the following sentence works given that it starts with
> "While this does not prevent subresources of XML documents..."
>
> I could use some help understanding what is happening here.

I deleted it because parse="xml" is no longer a special case.
But I agree that left the paragraph rather confused.

I've attempted to clarify it.

> Under section 3.1, under parse, the last Note, there
> is a "should not" that should be 2119-ed. (It looks
> like this is a long standing oversight.)

Fixed.

> Under section 3.1, under encoding, the XML source includes:
>
> <att>encoding</att>attribute specifies how
>
> which is missing a space.

Good eye. Fixed.

> In the DTD fragment just preceding the beginning of
> section 3.1.1, the parse attribute's declared value
> is given as NMTOKEN, but I think it should be CDATA.

Fixed. I also changed it to "application/xml". (See below.)

> Under 4.1 The Include Location, second para, it used to have:
>
>   or it may be unable to access another part of the document
>   using parse="xml" and an xpointer because of streamability
>   concerns
>
> andit now has:
>
>   or it may be unable to access another part of the document
>   as XML and an xpointer because of streamability
>   concerns
>
> which I don't think reads quite right.  Perhaps:
>
>   or it may be unable to access another part of the document
>   when parsing as XML and using an xpointer because of streamability
>   concerns

Fixed.

> Under 4.1.2 Using XInclude with Content Negotiation, there
> is a "should" in the last paragraph.  I think it can just
> be 2119-ed, but if not, then we should reword it to avoid
> the "should" word.

I think we could 2119 it, but I changed it to "can" instead.

> Under 4.5 Included Items for other values of parse, the first
> sentence starts:
>
>   When parse is neither “xml” nor “text”, the the...
>
> That needs to be changed; perhaps:
>
>   When processing as neither XML nor text, the...
>
> [Note also the removal of the extra "the".]

Fixed.

> Under 4.5 Included Items for other values of parse,
> the Note should be deleted.

Right.

> In appendix C, I'm not sure we needed to change every
> occurrence of parse="text" to parse="text/plain" since
> the former is still valid, but I don't feel too strongly
> about it.

I thought about leaving some of them, then decided that we should
probably be emphasizing the "correct" forms rather than the "legacy
shortcut" forms, but I don't feel strongly about it either.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
Phone: +1 512 761 6676
www.marklogic.com