- From: <vojtech.toman@emc.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 08:43:22 -0500
- To: <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
> > > > I am actually wondering whether the fact that the diagram has to rely > > on additional "uncategorized" properties rather than just on the > > profiles and classes isn't a bug in our specification. > > I'm having a hard time seeing it that way. The xml:id circle shows > which profiles appeal to the processing described by an additional > specification. We'd have factored xml:base processing out in a similar > way, I suspect, if we'd been willing to consider a profile that doesn't > mandate it. I was just thinking out loud while trying to understand how to read the diagram. Now that I got used to it more, it does not look that surprising to me. Once I got over my initial confusion and realized that the nested sets should be interpreted as "in addition to the containing superset", it all started to make perfect sense to me. > > > I think that the outer set (processing as required by conformant XML > > processors + base URI processing) is actually a subset of the Core > > class and can be removed from the diagram. > > The outer-most circle could be removed, I suppose, since it's universal > over our profiles. But I don't find it confusing. Nor do I now. > > > However, there is no class that would correspond to the other yelow > > set (xml:id). Should we have one? > > The property of being an "ID" requires the Extended and Decl classes, I > think. I don't think we need a new class, but I could be confused. Yes, again I was just... somewhere else. One more thing, still: What about a set for XInclude support? Right now, the Full Profile and External Declarations Profile seem indistinguishable in the diagram, but they are not. Regards, Vojtech -- Vojtech Toman Consultant Software Engineer EMC | Information Intelligence Group vojtech.toman@emc.com http://developer.emc.com/xmltech
Received on Monday, 2 January 2012 13:46:41 UTC