[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [tag] RE: May24 TAML PDF review - Update
Dennis: Most comments make sense to me. See inline <JD> for those that may need alternative solution to what you suggest. Regards, Jacques -----Original Message----- On p.6, last paragraph of section 2.1, I now wonder about the use of "declared" for elements. I think elements are expressed. I think this might do better: "Elements 'testAssertion', 'testAssertionSet', and 'testAssertionDocumentHeader' are global elements and can be top-level elements in a TAML markup instance (e.g., be root elements of an XML document). All other TAML elements are local in a markup instance under the TAML schema (i.e., are descendant children of a global element as provided by the schema).". On page 7, new text about extensions near the top of the DIFF page. There are a couple of things. In the second section, I think "At the exception ..." should be "With the exception ... ." The last sentence of the addition begins with "Note that ..." and then has a normative statement. That sentence can be removed. With regard to the allowance of TAML markup in <taml:common>, ... <taml:comment>, and the restriction on child elements, I think a better wording is needed. I will look at that separately. <JD> will add new 4th level subsections, but keep intro text before RelaxNG. On p.7 last sentence, "relative of their containing element" should be "relative to their containing element" p.8 Example - there should be a non-normative reference to the NIEM specification. Thanks for expanding the abbreviation. Is there a specific specification that can be referenced in the non-normative section? p.10 top of page, this is talking about the <derivedSourceItem> element but there is no accompanying Compact Relax NG definition as a lead-in. There seems to be somethiing out of order here, in comparison to how all of the other notions have a preceding Compact Relax NG definition that is further explained with subsequent prose. <JD> We say: "The compact Relax NG definition of taml:derivedSourceItem is same as for taml:refSourceItem", and we mentioned that. So no need for a separate RelaxNG def. p.10 Starting with the Compact Relax NG definition for <taml:comment>, the descriptive text is now in front of the Relax NG rather than after it as in the preceding descriptions. I suggest that the description be after the Compact Relax NG definition for the respective element. (That is, the new paragraphs are good but should be after the Relax NG.) I must have misled you with one of my previous coments. p.14 2.3.10 second paragraph below the schema. HTML cannot be used. HTML markup is not well-formed XML, doesn't have namespaces, etc. Try "can be a mixture of text and XML elements." p.15 first sentence below the bulleted list. I don't think we should allow unqualified further values to be added. We should use the same QName condition that is used for extensions to the value of 'label'. <JD> but that looks bad when you display the set of possible values in a test report: you don't want some to be qualified and some not. In tamelizer open source, we use a few extra values like "warning", "missingInput", etc. Frankly I don't want to qualify these... One way out is to add/define these in TAML spec as additions that @label *may* allow (so they remain unqualified, and everything beyond these must be qualified). Otherwise if we unqualify all extensions, it appears we need to do same for prescription/@level extensions. At the very least, @lable should not be NCName but normalizedString (if it is to accept either qualified or unqualified extensions). pp.14. <taml:tag> is an element. I just noticed that it has an @name attribute. Is this defined the same way as the other use of @name, and if not, shouldn't we differentiate them (for future cases where we want to allow taml:name in non-TAML instances, such as RDF). <JD> So it appears that we may have to rename: Tag/@name --> tag/@tname var/@name --> var/@vname testAssertionSet/@name --> testAssertionSet/@setname (we already have @setid) I think this should reference section 2.5. <JD> good point - in fact, I noticed that the text used for 2.5 in the markup is already in the TA model (3.2.12, with Tag subsection), so a brief recap in the markup taml:tag section is sufficient, with a reference to the Model section. Then we can entirely remove Section 2.5. pp. 17-18. Section 2.5.1 I don't understand how or why we are lapsing into this notation, which is not used anywhere else for TAML. Shouldn't we just say that NormativeProperty is a reserved taml:tag/@name value, and what the text of the element signifies? LIkewise with 2.5.2. And in the definition for taml:tab/@name="VersionDrop" I think the definition is not accurate (e.g., a number lower than VersionAdd would qualify). Perhaps "the numerical version number, if any, beyond which the test assertion does NOT apply". ** end of second-review notes ** --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]