W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2003

RE: Comment on xmlIDsemantics32

From: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 11:24:47 -0700
Message-ID: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F80648448C@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>, <www-tag@w3.org>, "Glenn A. Adams" <glenn@xfsi.com>

I can think of several others, here's one 
In fact the entire "What's the Problem" section seems innappropriate when taken within the context of the entire XML family of technologies instead of just the XML 1.0 recommendation. For example the statement below is false when it comes to W3C XML Schema 
"Validation and typing are separable but often conflated concepts. IDness is a consequence of parsing a DTD, not of validation."


From: www-tag-request@w3.org on behalf of Chris Lilley
Sent: Sat 6/14/2003 10:38 AM
To: www-tag@w3.org; Glenn A. Adams
Subject: Re: Comment on xmlIDsemantics32

On Saturday, June 14, 2003, 4:45:00 PM, Glenn wrote:

GAA> In the section "What is the problem?" of [1], I suggest scoping the
GAA> statements that are made to the XML definition of validity, and not
GAA> an absolute definition.

GAA> For example, in the first paragraph after the example, the phrase
GAA> "is not valid and cannot be validated" is true only with respect
GAA> to the XML specification's definition of valid and validatable
GAA> in the use of an XML DTD. The statement is not necessarily true
GAA> in contexts that don't soley depend on the XML definition of validity.

What other definitions were you thinking of?

GAA> Regards,
GAA> Glenn

GAA> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/xmlIDsemantics-32.html

 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Saturday, 14 June 2003 14:28:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:59 UTC