- From: Benjamin C. Chang <Ben.Chang@oracle.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 16:26:14 -0700
- To: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>
- CC: www-dom@w3.org, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, w3c-dom-wg@w3.org
Your personal comments should have been covered by the DOM WG's response sent last Friday: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2003AprJun/0048.html If not, feel free to send email by June 4. Thanks, Ben "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" wrote: > My profuse apologies for sending in a last-call review so > long after the deadline for comments. In the hopes that > they may still be of use, however, I append some comments > on the spec. > > These are personal comments for which no other individual > or organization bears responsibility. (I have also forwarded > them to the task force working to prepare a review of the spec > for the XML Schema WG, so some of them may be repeated if > and when that WG sends its comments.) > > My reading of the spec has been quick and necessarily > cursory in places; please bear with me if I have simply > misunderstood something. > > -C. M. Sperberg-McQueen > > Notes on DOM Level 3 Validation > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-DOM-Level-3-Val-20021008/DOM3-Val.html > > Note: I am assuming the intention is for this API to support > validation using XML Schema. If this is not the intention, my one > comment is that it should be. If it is the intention, then I have > more. > > The feature identifier "VAL-DOC" is troublesome; surely names used to > identify features of this kind should be namespace-qualified and in > some W3C namespace. > > Section 1.3, Interface DocumentEditVAL, definition of attribute > continuousValidityChecking: for 'if free' read 'is free'. > > Interface NodeEditVAL, method isNodeValid. My first reaction is to > say this should return something other than a boolean, to deal better > with the variety of results that can come back from schema-validity > assessment. (See > http://www.w3.org/People/cmsmcq/2001/validation-results and > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2001/06/validity-outcomes for overviews.) > > It occurs to me, though, that perhaps it's just a question of calling > the method with the right parameters. If we use 'va' for [Validation > attempted] and 'v' for [Validity], we have for node n: > > va='full' v='valid' iff n.isNodeValid(true,STRICT_VALIDITY_CHECK) > va='full' v='invalid' iff not n.isNodeValid(true,STRICT_VALIDITY_CHECK) > va='partial' v='valid' iff ... what? > va='partial' v='invalid' iff ... what? > va='partial' v='notKnown' iff we haven't run n.isNodeValid() but we > have validated at least one descendant > va='none' v='notKnown' iff we haven't run n.isNodeValid() > > It's not clear to me how the parameters 'deep' and > 'wFValidityCheckLevel' should be used to inquire about > schema-validity. I think an explicit discussion of how these > parameters relate to the values in the PSVI would be very helpful. > > Interface ElementEditVAL, attribute definedElementTypes -- it's not > clear why this attribute is limited to elements which are in the same > namespace as the element whose attribute this is. (That is what it > says, isn't it?) It is not the case that parents in a given namespace > can have only children from the same namespace; neither DTDs nor > schemas makes such a restriction, nor should they. > > Methods isElementDefined and isElementDefinedNS: these seem to need > further elaboration to explain how they work if the element is > declared local to some complex type: it may not be defined in the > given namespace, and even if it's in the namespace, it might collide > with a top-level element in the same namespace and of the same name; > is that likely to cause a problem? > > Glossary: definition of 'partially valid' should probably say whether > the children need to be valid or partially valid or not, in order for > the parent to be partially valid. (We assume they only have to have > the prescribed names, but it would be nice to be sure.) > > Glossary: 'partially valid' is defined, but 'strict validity' is also > used as a technical term and lacks a definition. It should be > defined.
Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2003 19:27:02 UTC