Question regarding DR 09-0216

[Shawn Villaron]

I have no objections to the proposed text.

From: Rex Jaeschke [mailto:rex at RexJaeschke.com]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 12:57 PM
To: SC 34 WG4
Subject: Question regarding DR 09-0216


I show email traffic (see below) based on my proposed response, but no record of agreement on the final words after that. Did I miss something, or do we still need final words?

Rex

1.      DR 09-0216 - WML: Custom XML and Smart Tags

Status: Closed; will be incorporated in COR1

Subject: WML: Custom XML and Smart Tags

Qualifier: Request for clarification

Submitter: Mr. Francis Cave (BSI)

Contact Information: francis at franciscave.com<mailto:francis at franciscave.com>

Submitter's Defect Number: 08-00131

Supporting Document(s): none

Date Circulated by Secretariat: 2009-05-22

Deadline for Response from Editor: 2009-07-22

IS 29500 Reference(s): Part 1: §17.5.1, "Custom XML and Smart Tags", p. 529

Related DR(s): none

Nature of the Defect:

The second para on p. 529 following the bullets has: "The distinction between custom XML markup and smart tags is that custom XML markup is based on a specified schema."

It is not clear how "a specified schema" is specified in this context. Can there only be one specified schema per document?

Solution Proposed by the Submitter:

Point to normative text describing how one or more schemas are specified, or - if this does not exist - provide new text.

Schema Change(s) Needed:

Editor's Response:

The exact changes are as follows:

Part 1: §17.5, "Custom XML and Smart Tags", p. 529

The distinction between custom XML markup and smart tags is that custom XML markup is based on a specified schema, which shall be specified using the attachedSchema element (§17.15.1.5). As a result, the custom XML elements can be validated against the schema. Also, as shown below, custom XML markup can be used at the block-level as well as on the inline (run) level.

2009-06-11 Makoto Murata:

>  which shall be specified using the attachedSchema element

Is this a recommendation or a requirement?  In other words, is the attachedSchema element authoritative?

2009-06-11 Mohamed Zergaoui:

I was also wondering why it is used "CAN" which is not RFC compliant.

I would also go for a "MAY" ("XML elements MAY be validated") and would also add ("but MUST be valid with respect to the attachedSchema").
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20090629/fbd0f151/attachment.htm>