W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-id@w3.org > January 2005

Re: DTD and Schema Validation Technologies

From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 12:11:11 -0500
To: "Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@pahv.xerox.com>
Cc: "'public-xml-id@w3.org'" <public-xml-id@w3.org>
Message-id: <87sm5fu7gw.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ "Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@pahv.xerox.com> was heard to say:
| 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]? 

The Core WG discussed this issue and notes that the consequences are already
clearly defined by the second bullet point in Section 4:

  The declared type of the attribute, if it has one, is "ID". All
  declarations for xml:id attributes must specify "ID" as the type of
  the attribute.

We agree that the use of normative "must not" language in the
non-normative appendix is an error and will change the text. Our
anticipated change is simply to make a note for authors that use of
non-ID types in their schemas will result in xml:id errors and so they
should be avoided.

| 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". 

I don't believe that any such deprecation is intended, though I note
that maximum interoperability will be achieved if xml:id is used.

Please let me know if you are satisfied with this resolution to your
comments. (I will address your editorial comments as well.)

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

Received on Wednesday, 5 January 2005 17:11:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:53:49 UTC