- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:01:22 -0500
- To: www-tag@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m2d4qrxur1.fsf@nwalsh.com>
I've been reviewing the 4 July 2007 draft of [Editorial Draft] Extending and Versioning Languages: XML Languages: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning-xml-20070704.html Section 1.1, para 1, "An XML Language is an where all the Texts MUST..." There seems to be something missing. Section 1.1, diagram Despite the fact that we've spent a fair bit of time talking about the diagram, I don't find it very helpful. I find it particularly difficult to get my head around "Information Set" as distinct from "XML Information Set" and "Act of Consumption" as distinct from "Act of Interpretation". What is the relationship between "string_set" and "semantics"? I don't find a description of "string_set" in either this document or part 1. Section 2, bullet 1, "Often this results in Schemas that are incomplete in..." Incomplete in what sense? Section 2, bullet 2, "...like XHTML's P element" But there is only one namespace for the XHTML P element, no? Section 3, initial list I think "different schemas" should be added to that list. I might have a vocabulary with six versions and assert the rule that if an instance is valid according to one (or more) of those schemas, then that is the version (or versions) of that document. Section 3.2, para 1 I really don't understand this paragraph. I think I have a sense for what "top typing" is, but I don't get "bottom typing" at all. Section 3.2, para 3 What's the distinction between component definition and component type? The introduction talks about "component" but doesn't mention either "component definition" or "component type". Section 3.3 Why does it follow that "a schema cannot refer to the correct middle type"? Section 5.2.1, para 3, "This allows producers to extend instances without changing the extension element's parent namespace" How does a must-understand flag allow this? I'll try to post more comments on the rest of the document in the next day or two. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | To rule one's anger is well; to prevent http://nwalsh.com/ | it is better.--Tryon Edwards
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2008 20:01:45 UTC