bottom line - was RE: Schema for schemas and XML schema DTD

When it comes right down to it, what I'm suggesting is that the official
version of the s-f-s be the normalized version of the one in the spec, so
that regardless of how one parses it, one gets the same infoset.

Given that, the presence of the DTD declaration is annoying but
insignificant.

All hail Murata Makoto!

Matthew

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk [mailto:ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk]
> Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2000 2:44 AM
> To: Jonathan Robie
> Cc: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Schema for schemas and XML schema DTD
> 
> 
> Jonathan Robie <Jonathan.Robie@SoftwareAG-USA.com> writes:
> 
> > Henry Thompson wrote:
> > 
> > >Yes it would.  All the defaults in the DTD just 
> re-interate defaults
> > >already expressed in the prose (or the schema for 
> schemas).  There are
> > >three ways a conforming processor can be built:
> > 
> > [!!! SNIP !!!]
> > 
> > >The crucial point for the current discussion is that it doesn't
> > >_matter_ where the defaults come from.  The only default 
> values in the
> > >DTD for schemas are also in the schema for schemas and the prose of
> > >the REC.
> > 
> > Henry argues that it doesn't matter whether they are represented in
> > the schema, as long as they are represented in the prose or in the
> > DTD. I don't understand this.
> 
> No, what I said was it doesn't matter if they're in the DTD 
> as long as 
> they're in the schema and the prose.
> 
> > If the Schema for Schemas can represent defaults or fixed 
> values, and
> > it does not,
> 
> Sorry, I'm now completely lost in a sea of generalities.  Return to
> the particular:
> 
>   <element name="schema" id="schema"> . . .</element> [from 
> the s-for-s]
> 
> What precisely are you unhappy about?  That it doesn't read e.g.
> 
>   <element name="schema" id="schema" abstract="false">...</element>
> 
> ?
> 
> That's an understandable objection, but I think it's 
> misguided.  If it 
> turns out that _is_ all you're unhappy about, I'll return to this
> point when you say so.
> 
> Or that it _does_ read, higher up,
> 
> <!DOCTYPE schema SYSTEM "...XMLSchema.dtd"...>
> 
> and that in that DTD we find
> 
>   <!ATTLIST schema ... abstract CDATA "false"...>
> 
> ?
> 
> Why is that a problem?  The s-for-s would mean _exactly_ the same
> thing without the DTD (see below).  Having the DTD simply gives
> DTD-based XML tools (and there are lots of them) something to 
> work with.
> 
> Why is the the DTD declaration irrelevant to the semantics (i.e. the
> correspondence of the above-quoted element to an element declaration
> component whose {abstract} property has the boolean value 'false'?
> Because
> 
>   a) The s-for-s identifies its namespace as
>   "http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema", and the schema at that NS URI
>   declares the type for the element named 'element' with a type
>   definition which includes, inter alia, an attribute declaration
>   whose {name} is 'abstract' and whose {value constraint} is
>   ('false','default'), via the following
> 
>   <attribute name="abstract" type="boolean" use="default" 
> value="false"/>
> 
>   b) The REC itself defines the mapping from XML representations to
> components for {abstract} as follows [1]
> 
>     "The normalized value of the 'abstract' [attribute], if present,
>     otherwise false"
> 
> Belt-and-braces, yes, but something to complain about?  I 
> don't think so.
> 
> Or is what you are worried about that the defaults in the DTD are
> not reflected in the s-for-s?  But as the above example calls out,
> this is simply false to fact.  Every default in the DTD _is_ 
> reflected 
> in the s-for-s, or at least it should be, and I've checked a 
> number of 
> times that all _three_ loci are in agreement.
> 
> So what _are_ you concerned about?
> 
> ht
> -- 
>   Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, 
> University of Edinburgh
>           W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team
>      2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 
> 131 650-4440
> 	    Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
> 		     URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
>

Received on Monday, 6 November 2000 15:17:05 UTC