Re: [tag] Proposed Conf Clause rewording for the TA markup:

[Stephen Green <stephen.green@documentengineeringservices.com>]

Minor change:
(including "Sections 2.3 (test
assertions), " for test assertion set)

"Implementations of this specification that may claim conformance according to this conformance clause are: (1) instances of test assertion, (2) instances of test assertion set.

A conforming test assertion instance shall fulfill all mandatory normative statements in Sections 2.3 (test assertions) and 2.6 (reserved tag names) of this specification, and be valid according to the schema accompanying this specification.

A conforming test assertion set instance shall fulfill all mandatory normative statements in Sections 2.3 (test assertions), 2.4 (test assertions set), 2.5 (test assertion references) and 2.6 (reserved tag names) of this specification and be valid according to the schema accompanying this specification.

This schema is copied in-line in Section 3 but in the case of any discrepancies between the in-line copy and the schema accompanying this specification it is the separate schema which shall be used as the authoritative definition of the validating schema."

Any objections to me using this text for the markup conformance clause?


Best regards

Steve
---
Stephen D Green




On 3 February 2010 11:12, Stephen Green <stephen.green@documentengineeringservices.com> wrote:


> Here's text I propose adding (in place of existing
> markup conformance clause) to include most of
> Jacques' wording and address Dennis' comments:
>
> PROPOSED TEXT:
>
> "Implementations of this specification that may claim conformance


> according to this conformance clause are: (1) instances of test
> assertion, (2) instances of test assertion set.
>
> A conforming test assertion instance shall fulfill all mandatory
> normative statements in Sections 2.3 (test assertions) and 2.6


> (reserved tag names) of this specification, and be valid according to
> the schema accompanying this specification.
>
> A conforming test assertion set instance shall fulfill all mandatory
> normative statements in Sections 2.4 (test assertions set) 2.5 (test


> assertion references) and 2.6 (reserved tag names) of this
> specification, be valid according to the schema accompanying this
> specification.
>
> This schema is copied in-line in section 3 but in the case of any


> discrepancies between the in-line copy and the schema accompanying
> this specification it is the separate schema which shall be used as
> the authoritative definition of the validating schema."

>
>
> I've removed the text "and contain only conforming test assertions
> instances" from the section
> on test assertion set because strictly speaking the markup does allow
> for test assertions in


> other markup to be 'contained' in a set via the TA reference
> construct, as the spec mentions.
> Plus the fact that a TA set is valid by the schema necessarily means
> that its inline TAs are valid


> too.
>
> The last sentence merely makes explicit what is already in the TC rules
> but in case these rules change it seems as well to include this clarification.
>
>
> Best regards


>
> Steve
> ---
> Stephen D Green
>
>
>
>
> On 3 February 2010 02:23, Jacques R. Durand <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com> wrote:


>> Agree with these updates - can you send out exactly the new complete
>> clause, Dennis?
>>
>> -jacques
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org]


>> Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 5:21 PM
>> To: Jacques R. Durand; tag@lists.oasis-open.org
>> Subject: RE: [tag] Proposed Conf Clause rewording for the TA markup:


>>
>>  1. I favor the proposed text.  I did notice that the first sentence is
>> peculiar in that it ascribes agency to implementations.  How about
>>
>> Conforming instances of test assertions and conforming instances of test


>> assertion sets are conforming implementations of this specification.
>>
>> It might work better if it follows the current second and third
>> paragraphs.
>>
>>  2. I think referencing the Declared XML Namespace(s) link may end up


>> being circular.  I would refer to the "the schema accompanying this
>> specification (section 3)." At the top of Section 3, ahead of the
>> schema, I would put a paragraph that makes a normative citation to


>> [taml-schema], which is provided a full citation in the normative
>> references.  I would then have the explanation that the text shown in
>> the referenced schema is the authoritative one and the version in


>> Section 3 is informative.
>>
>> I think this works better than referencing the front matter and in
>> finding the schema indirectly through the Namespace Document.
>>
>>  - Dennis


>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jacques R. Durand [mailto:JDurand@us.fujitsu.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 16:57


>> To: tag@lists.oasis-open.org
>> Subject: [tag] Proposed Conf Clause rewording for the TA markup:
>>
>> Based on today's discussion:


>> Proposed Conf Clause rewording for the TA markup spec:
>>
>> NOTE: Make sure to send any comment  on this before Thursday noon US PT
>> time
>> - the latest text to appear by this Thu noon PT is what Stephen will


>> pick up for update early Friday morning (US time)...IF there is no
>> objection raised on the mailing list in-between.
>>
>>
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>> PROPOSED TEXT:


>>
>> Implementations of this specification that may claim conformance
>> according to this conformance clause are: (1) instances of test
>> assertion, (2) instances of test assertion set.


>>
>> A conforming test assertion instance shall fulfill all mandatory
>> normative statements in Sections 2.3 (test assertions) and 2.6 (reserved
>> tag names) of this specification, and be valid according to the schema


>> accompanying this specification with the namespace as defined under
>> 'Declared XML Namespace(s)' in the heading area of this specification.
>>
>> A conforming test assertion set instance shall fulfill all mandatory


>> normative statements in Sections 2.4 (test assertions set) 2.5 (test
>> assertion references) and 2.6 (reserved tag names) of this
>> specification, be valid according to the schema accompanying this


>> specification with the namespace as defined under 'Declared XML
>> Namespace(s)' in the heading area of this specification, and contain
>> only conforming test assertions instances.

>>
>> This schema is copied in-line in section 3 but in the case of any
>> discrepancies between the in-line copy and the schema accompanying this
>> specification it is the separate schema which shall be used as the


>> authoritative definition of the validating schema.
>>
>>
>> -jacques
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that


>> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php


>>
>>
>