W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org > February 2004

RE: XML Schema WG Comments on Last Call Draft

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 15:47:30 -0800
Message-ID: <DF1BAFBC28DF694A823C9A8400E71EA202A14E54@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Ashok Malhotra" <ashokma@microsoft.com>, <www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-xml-schema-ig@w3.org>

Thank you for your comments.  Responses below:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-xml-xinclude-comments-request@w3.org
> comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ashok Malhotra
> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 9:55 AM
> To: www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org
> Cc: w3c-xml-schema-ig@w3.org
> Subject: XML Schema WG Comments on Last Call Draft
> These comments on the XInclude Last Call draft dated November 10, 2003
> on behalf of the XML Schema WG
> The XML Schema WG congratulates the XML Core WG for the good work it
> done in producing the last call draft for XInclude.
> We find this draft much improved over earlier versions.  We also note
> most of our comments on earlier versions have been
> addressed.  Consequently we have only minor comments on this version
> the draft.
> 1.  XInclude now works as an Infoset transformation.   If the
> documents/fragments have been Schema validated the
> PSVI decorations are removed before the inclusion takes place and the
> resulting Infosets have to be re-validated if so needed.
> We find your description of the inclusion process under this
> consistent and correct but we are disappointed that
> you did not choose to step up to the challenge of inclusions based on
> PSVIs.

The Core WG continues to believe a full solution is a complicated
proposition, especially because of the possibility for recursive
includes.  Even XML Schema does not specify how to apply validation
recursively to a PSVI.  We also are concerned about getting
implementation experience on such a feature - none of the
implementations by WG members are willing to implement such
functionality.  However, we do leave open the possibility of a
specification for accomplishing this when the knowledge and demand by
implementers is there.

> 2.  In our comments on the last draft we said :
> "(3) We consider it a mistake to erase all record that XInclude
> processing has occurred. This damages the usability of this
> specification for many applications, such as distributed editing,
> document packaging, and so on."  Your reaction to this comment was to
> point out that most of the Infoset properties were optional and
> implementations
> were free to maintain such information if they wished.  We would
> a better architected solution to this issue.

We did add a simple Boolean property [included] (see Section 4.5) which
records the fact that inclusion has occurred.  Did you consider this
property insufficient?  We would like to hear your thoughts on this
issue before we make a final disposition of this issue.

> 3. Section 5 discusses support for IRIs.  Since the IRI proposal is
not a
> recommendation yet, you say you expect to issue an erratum
> with possible changes when the IRI proposal becomes a recommendation.
> This is reasonable.  But, it's is a pity that the
> IRI support has to be handled in this manner.  Do you have a projected
> date for the erratum?

That depends upon the IRI draft.  We have successfully (we hope) used
the same strategy in Namespaces 1.1 which has recently gone to

> All the best, Ashok

And to you,
Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2004 18:48:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:09:34 UTC