[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-comment] Ambiguity problems caused by ID/IDREF
Dear Murata-san, thank you very much for the clarifications. I think they will be very helpful when we discuss the topic in the TC. Best regards Michael MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) wrote: > Michael, > > Thank you for your thoughtful mail. I am happy to see that you > are serious about bug reports. > >> a) Alex Brown has suggested to use W3C xml:id rather than Relax NG DTD >> Compatibility: > snip >> Would the use of W3C xml:id without using the Relax NG DTD >> Compatibility Specification in your opinion add ID semantics to the >> xml:id attribute? > > I think so. In other words, I do not understand the non-normative > appendix "D Validation Technologies" of xml:id. But you might want > to hear the opinion of the editors of xml:id. > >> The W3C XML ID specification in appendix D.2 recommends: >> >> "RELAX NG Grammar authors are encouraged to declare attributes named >> xml:id with the type xs:ID.", > > > Yes. I do not understand why this is encouraged. > >> and the "Guidelines for using W3C XML Schema Datatypes with RELAX NG" >> state that >> >> "The semantics defined by [W3C XML Schema Datatypes] for the ID, IDREF >> and IDREFS datatypes are purely lexical and do not include the >> cross-reference semantics of the corresponding [XML 1.0] datatypes." >> >> This sounds to me like that using W3C xml:id without Relax NG DTD >> Compatibility does not specify ID semantics for xml:id. > > In my understanding, the xml:id processor should provide ID semantics > for xml:id. >> On the other hand, the W3C xml:id specification also states that: >> >> "An xml:id processor should assure that the following constraint holds: >> >> * The values of all attributes of type "ID" (which includes all >> xml:id attributes) within a document are unique." >> >> so at least the uniqueness of the IDs may have to be checked. However, >> the semantics of IDREF attributes seem to remain purely lexical unless >> the the Relax NG DTD Compatibility Specification is used. Is my >> understanding correct? > > I think that you are right. I do not know why the xml:id spec does not > provide xml:idref as well. > >> Is my understanding correct that a specification that uses Relax NG >> (like ODF) may require conformance with only one, or two of the three >> features defined by Relax NG Compatibility. In particular, is it >> possible to request conformance with the attribute default value >> feature, but not with ID/IDREF feature? Or vice versa, could a >> specification request conformance with the ID/IDREF feature only? > > Strictly speaking, the DTD compatibility spec defines conformance > of application programs but do not define conformance of schemas. > It rather defines compatibility of schemas. A schema may be compatible > with the ID/IDREF/IDREFS feature without being comptible with the attribute > default values feature. > >> In other words: Is your suggestion to claim conformance to the ID/IDREF >> feature in the future, but to not claim conformance to the attribute >> default value and documentation features? Or is your suggestion to >> claim conformance to the full DTD Compatibility specification, but to >> not define any a:defaultValue attributes or a:documentation elements in >> the schema, so that all that what is said about these features in the >> Relax NG DTD Compatibility specification simply is not applicable to the >> ODF schema. > > The latter. But I do not think a:documentation elements should be > prohibited. >> And is it in your opinion permitted that the ODF specification currently >> makes only use of the default value feature without claiming conformance >> to the ID/IDREF or documentation feature? > > The ODF schema is NOT compatible with the default value feature. > It is NOT compatible with the ID/IDREF feature. Since it does not > have any occurrences of a:documentation elements, it is compatible > with the documentation feature. > > Hope this helps. > > Cheers, > -- Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering StarOffice/OpenOffice.org Sun Microsystems GmbH Nagelsweg 55 D-20097 Hamburg, Germany michael.brauer@sun.com http://sun.com/staroffice +49 40 23646 500 http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]