[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Specification xml fragment recheck in specification and its results: issue raised, please comment
In preparation for deciding about moving the CS to Oasis Specification,
I was asked to check the examples in the specification once again. The examples occasionally delete some required elements,
whose absence is noted by a comment. I assume this editorial liberty is OK.
Also, the ID values referenced in some fragments actually occur elsewhere, so
occasionally a missing ID value for an IDREF data type is noted by a tool. I
also assume this is OK and we can note this fact in response to item c (see
below for requirement c). It is impossible to both have focus on the fragment
and have all the referenced items included in the immediate text so I think
this is inevitable when using illustrative bits of XML in the text. Unfortunately, in the .doc format, for section 3.4.6.3 on
using xinclude, some of the quotation marks have been converted to the matching
quotation mark values, and if the fragment is checked in Oxygen 7.0, for
example, a well-formedness complaint is issued. Also, in that example, the
xinclude statement is commented out (probably a result, ironically, of checking
the fragment for validity; validity check requires that the xinclude insertions
be carried out before the schema check). This means the example doesn’t
actually technically have an xinclude in it, but just a comment. Will people be
confused? Note that any change except on the title page requires that
revote the CS status unfortunately. If we do decide to revote for CS editorial changes like
this, I would suggest one more adjustment to align the example with open source
implementations of xinclude that I examined. Many of these implementations do
not implement the “xpointer scheme” but instead, if they support
the include/@xpointer attribute at all, appear to make use of the “element
scheme”. Here is what the difference would look like From now using <xi:include href=""signals-package-2.0.3.xml""
parse="xml"
xpointer="xpointer(/ProcessSpecification/Package[1])"/> to using <xi:include
href=""signals-package-2.0.3.xml"" parse="xml"
xpointer="element(/1/1)"/> [This assumes that the file “signals=package-2.0.3.xml”
is in the current working directory, usually, but implementers should
eventually figure that out. If the TC favors making these editorial updates, I suggest
we also change to use the element scheme so that implementers have an example
to try out that is closer to working with widely available open source tools. Here is the point c in the OASIS requirement that we need to
fulfill prior to OASIS specification vote. ·
Certification by the TC that all schema and XML instances included in the
specification, whether by inclusion or reference, including fragments of such,
are well formed, and that all expressions are valid; at |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]