- From: Klotz, Leigh <Leigh.Klotz@pahv.xerox.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:11:20 -0800
- To: "'public-xml-id@w3.org'" <public-xml-id@w3.org>
- Cc: "Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@pahv.xerox.com>
Dear Editors, In xml:id Version 1.0 W3C Working Draft 09 November 2004 in the section "With DTD Validation" [1], the last call working draft says DTD authors must not declare xml:id as something other than ID. DTD authors who declare attributes other than xml:id as type ID will not receive the full benefits of xml:id processing. Such attributes may or may not be recognized processors, including xml:id processors. Similar language is used again in "With Schema Validation" [2]. I note that these sections both occur in an appendix titled "Validation Technologies (Non-Normative)" [3], and I think that "must not" is odd to use inside a Non-Normative appendix. Furthermore, placing it as a "must not" constraint on authors rather than a "should not" constrain on authors or a "must not" constraint on Schemas and DTDs begs semantic questions, because it is not possible to express conformance requirements on authors. I found the switch in topic between the first and second sentences confusing, and recommend that they be split into two paragraphs. Finally, I note a missing word in two sentences in these sections. Details: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- For violateion of the prohibition "DTD authors must not declare xml:id as something other than ID." in [1] and the similar sentence in [2], no consequences are given. - Are all XML-aware processors expected to note type clashes? = All DTD or Schema aware processors? - Only xml:id processors? - Does it result in a non-terminating xml:id error as described in [4]? This last seems likeliest, but as the definition of xml:id error says that it is when a document violates the constraints, and this constraint is not on documents (nor even on Schemas or DTDs), but on authors, it seems misplaced as well. REQUESTED ACTION: If left in the non-normative appendix, - Change the language of the first sentence to be non-normative, and either state that the behavior is undefined or refer to [5] "Processing xml:id Attributes" Or, - Move these constraints to a normative section of the document - Write them as constraints on XML Schemas and DTDs rather than as constraints on authors - State explicitly what happens when a non-confirming Schema or DTD is encountered by an xml:id processor (Note that the constraints in [5] are on the processing of documents, not on Schemas or DTDs.) -- Either xml:id processors are allowed to signal xml:id errors, -- Or xml:id processors will have undefined behavior in the face of type clashes - And what about types derived by restriction from xsd:ID? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- As an editorial note, it was not clear to me on first reading that the next sentence in [1] and [2] DTD authors who declare attributes other than xml:id as type ID will not receive the full benefits of xml:id processing. was the dual of the first sentence. The parallel construction both with "DTD Authors" lead me down a garden path. REQUESTED ACTION: I would recommend separating the two cases into two paragraphs. The same recommendation goes for the Schema section as well. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ It appears that the xml:id Working Draft is asking authors to refrain from using xsd:ID or ID DTD declarations and to convert documents to using xml:id exclusively from this day forward. If so, such a recommendation should be included prominently in the Introduction to the document. REQUESTED ACTION: - Clarify whether this Working Draft proposes to deprecate XML Schema and DTD ID declarations not named "xml:id". ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ As a final editorial note, the sentence (again in both DTD and XML Schema sections) Such attributes may or may not be recognized processors, including xml:id processors. is missing a word. REQUESTED ACTION: Change it in both sections [1] and [2] to: Such attributes may or may not be recognized by processors, including xml:id processors. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xml-id-20041109/#with-dtd-validation [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xml-id-20041109/#with-schema-validation [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xml-id-20041109/#validation-technologies [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xml-id-20041109/#dt-xml-id-error [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xml-id-20041109/#processing Sincerely, Leigh L. Klotz, Jr. Xerox Corporation
Received on Saturday, 20 November 2004 00:11:26 UTC