W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org > July 2000

XInclude WD 22-March-2000 comments

From: Steve Rowe <sarowe@textwise.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 16:03:37 -0400
To: <www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NCBBJHNPJKLDEEEJDICPAELPCJAA.sarowe@textwise.com>
Greetings XIncluders.

1) XInclude-54-syntax: If you publish another working draft, you might
consider adding rationales for choosing either the element or the
attribute syntax.  In favor of the element syntax, XInclude is in
control of the expected child nodes of an include element (from a
pre-inclusion validation perspective).  Also in favor of the element
syntax, because XInclude processing precedes application consumption,
the inclusion element type is irrelevant: it could be a comment about
or description of (choice: purpose, included element type, etc.); by
choosing the attribute syntax over the element syntax, you imply that
that XInclude will be employed as a (normative) part of other
vocabularies, rather than as a supplemental vocabulary which can be
mixed with other vocabularies at will.

3) Section 3.2 (Acquiring resources to be included): How can different
character encoding of the children of included elements be "taken into
account" if it's not preserved in any way?  If XInclude will not
mandate that the encoding of included nodes be the same as those of
the source infoset, then it should at least record the fact that there
might be a problem.  This kind of thing really belongs in the Infoset.

4) Section 3.3 (Merging infosets): "The include element, its
attributes and any children, are not represented in the result
infoset".  I think you should include an example to underline this;
it's a big deal.

5) Typos:

a) At the end of Section 3.1: "not to it's replacement." -> "not to
its replacement."

b) At the end of Section 3.2.2: "specificataion." -> "specification."

c) Second paragraph in Section 3.3: "not changed as result of" -> "not
changed as a result of"

d) First sentence in Section 3.3.4: "represents a ranges" ->
"represents a range"

e) First sentence in Section 4: "The syntax for specifying inclusion
similar" -> "The syntax for specifying inclusion syntax is similar"

f) Original and result documents in Section C.1: "120Mz" -> "120 MHz"

g) First sentence in Section C.3: 'The following XML document link a
working example into.' -> 'The following XML document includes a
"working example."' (perhaps another wording would be better?)
Received on Tuesday, 25 July 2000 16:04:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:09:29 UTC