Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Informative clauses

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

"Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
wrote on 06/24/2008 04:11:12 AM:

> 2008/6/23  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>:
> 
> >
> > Section 1.4 "Relax-NG Schema"
> >
> > "The normative XML Schema for the OpenDocument format is
embedded within
> > this specification. It can be obtained from the specification
document by
> > concatenating all schema fragments contained in chapters 1 to
16. All schema
> > fragments have a gray background color and line numbers."
> 
> 
> Informative statement? Schema is normative. Doesn't say
> all instances of ODF documents shall be valid to it.
> 

Dave, you're shooting blanks again.

ISO says,  "The normative parts of a standard
are those which set out the scope and provisions of the standard."
 (ISO Directives, Part 2, Section 3.8.

ISO also says "The provisions of a standard consist
of:

   1. Requirements that must be met for
conformance
   2. Recommendations
   3. Statements of permissible, possible
or capable actions"  (ISO Directives, Part 2, section 3.12)

A Relax NG formally describes the structure and contents
of an ODF document, including which elements are required and which are
optional.  Since the schema is indicated to be normative, then the
constraints defined by the schema are provisions of the ODF standard, and
the requirements defined by the schema are requirements of ODF "that
must be met for conformance".

> 
> >
> > -----
> >
> > So the schema is declared to be normative.  By using Relax
NG we have an
> > ISO-approved formal notation for indicating structural and content
> > requirements and options for XML.
> 
> That's a view. Not a requirement stated in the paragraph.
> Your lax interpretation.
> 

See above.  When we say something is normative,
it is not an insignificant statement.

> 
>  Since 2.4.2 "Base Settings" is obviously
> > a schema fragment (with gray background color and line numbers),
this is
> > included in the set of normative requirements defined by the
schema.
> 
> Only by your inference. Nothing in the para states so.
> 

See above.  

> 
> Oh dear.
> Grepping for validity.
> 
> 1.5 Conforming applications either shall read documents that are valid
> against the OpenDocument schema if all foreign elements and attributes
> are removed before validation takes place, or shall write documents
> that are valid against the OpenDocument schema if all foreign elements
> and attributes are removed before validation takes place.
> 
> 
> 2.1.2 it may validate the document. Otherwise, it is optional to
> validate the document, but the document must be well formed.
> 
> So a document must be well formed! A start. (I'll be generous and
> assume they mean a conforming office document though it's not stated)
> 
> That is the only relevant mention of validation Rob.
> 

You are confusing application conformance and document
conformance.  We don't require that a conforming application actually
performs validation.  This is an implementation detail, and because
of the performance impact, some will and some will not choose to validate.
 But this does not remove the requirement that conforming documents
be valid.

> So although the schema is stated to be normative, there is nothing
> (that I have found) that requires an xml instance
> claiming to be an ODF document to be valid to the schema.
> 

See above.  If something is normative, then it
is setting out requirements.  What then are the requirements set out
by ODF's schema? Are you denying that a RNGZ schema cannot define requirements
on the structure of contents of an XML instance?  Isn't that the very
purpose of a schema?

> 
> Unless you know otherwise?
> 

Indeed.

> 
> I repeat. The TC will be wasting its time if it takes your lax
> approach to verbiage.
> 

I sometimes wonder who is really wasting his time
here.


-Rob