DR-08-0014: Shared MLs, Shared Simple Types: ST_String exampledescription error

[Shawn Villaron]

Yes, that's what I was looking for. I'd like us to agree to move this to "last call" status.

Does anyone see things differently?

-----Original Message-----
From: Caroline Arms [mailto:caar at loc.gov] 
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 10:50 AM
To: eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp; e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org; Shawn Villaron
Subject: RE: DR-08-0014: Shared MLs, Shared Simple Types: ST_String exampledescription error

Shawn,

Did I hear that you wanted a confirmation that this was what we agreed so that it could go to "last call" status?  If so, I'm prepared to confirm that this represents what we agreed on the call

    Caroline

Caroline Arms
Library of Congress Contractor
Co-compiler of Sustainability of Digital Formats resource
http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/

** Views expressed are personal and not necessarily those of the institution **
>>> Shawn Villaron <shawnv at microsoft.com> 04/30/09 11:04 AM >>>
In today's teleconference, we agreed to one more change to this text ( highlighted ), which is as follows:

22.9.2.13 ST_String (String)
This simple type specifies that its contents contains a string. The contents of this string are interpreted based on
the context of the parent XML element.

[Example: Consider the following WordprocessingML fragment:

<w:pPr>
        <w:pStyle w:val="heading1" />
</w:pPr>

The value of the val attribute is the ID of the associated paragraph style's styleId. However, consider the
following fragment:

<w:sdtPr>
        <w:alias w:val="SDT Title Example" />
        ...
</w:sdtPr>

In this case, the decimal number in the val attribute is the caption of the parent structured document tag. In
each case, the value is of type ST_String, and therefore must be interpreted in the context of the parent
element. end example]

This simple type's contents are a restriction of the W3C XML Schema string datatype.

It was concluded that, with this new change, we would move this response to LAST CALL.

Thanks,

shawn

_____________________________________________
From: Shawn Villaron
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 1:22 PM
To: 'MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)'; e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
Subject: RE: DR-08-0014: Shared MLs, Shared Simple Types: ST_String example description error


In the interest of making progress on the other DRs, let's make the following change to 22.9.2.13:

22.9.2.13 ST_String (String)
This simple type specifies that its contents contains a string. The contents of this string are interpreted based on
the context of the parent XML element.

[Example: Consider the following WordprocessingML fragment:

<w:pPr>
        <w:pStyle w:val="heading1" />
</w:pPr>

The value of the val attribute is the ID of the associated paragraph style's styleId. However, consider the
following fragment:

<w:sdtPr>
        <w:alias w:val="SDT Title Example" />
        ...
</w:sdtPr>

In this case, the decimal number in the val attribute is the caption of the parent structured document tag. In
each case, the value is of type ST_String, and therefore must be interpreted in the context of the parent
element. end example]

This simple type's contents are a restriction of the W3C XML Schema string datatype.

I believe that these changes will resolve all of the discussions we've had thus far on the reflector.  Perhaps we can move this defect report to last call?

Thanks,

shawn

-----Original Message-----
From: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) [mailto:eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp]
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:46 AM
To: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
Subject: Re: DR-08-0014: Shared MLs, Shared Simple Types: ST_String example description error

> I do believe that the current text of 22.9.2.13 serves a purpose: that
> attributes of the same name, used in different contexts, have
> potentially different meanings.

Context dependencies do not belong to ST_String but belong to
attributes or elements, and thus should not be described here.

There are other semantic issues about strings, such as case-(in)sensitivity..
When no other such semantic issues are mentioned here, why should
we care context dependencies?

Cheers,

--
Makoto <EB2M-MRT at asahi-net.or.jp>