stylesWithEffects / musings ?

[MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)]

Alex,

> > The target namespace of each schema file does.
> 
> That makes sense, but is it specified anywhere? Obviously we can't know about
>future extensions using unknown XML constructs - but when we encounter
>an extension using elements/Namespace we know about, then can we know
>what action to take?

Strictly speaking, 29500 and its normative references do not specify
anything about validation of OPC parts in the XML syntax.  

So,
> , but is it specified anywhere?
Nowhere.


> > Extensions in standardized namespaces are not allowed
> 
> I'm confused. This unrecognised part makes of a standardised Namespace.
>Does anything in the text state whether this is okay or not?

No, since this OPC part is not standardized by 29500.

> > What do you mean by "semantics"?
> 
> Well, everything really. For any given element x mentioned in the standard, it has
>a schema-defined content model together with (sometimes) datatyping and
>narrative description. Does this mean this is the *only* way this
>element can be used, or can extension writers override what the standard
>allows when that element occurs in an extension?

As long as the element appears in a non-standard OPC part, anything is
allowed.

> > In my understanding, validity of styleWithEffects.xml is not required by 25900.
> >  If you try to validate it, you are guessing the semantics of MS Office 2010 extensions.
> 
> But the elements it uses are defined by standard schemas. So I repeat my question, 
>are such elements - used in extensions - subject to the constraints of
>29500?

No.  It is subject to the constraints of the MS Office 2010 extension
specifications.  But these specifications specify the constraints on the 
basis of 29500 schemas.

As an example, I might want to create my own extension of 29500 by
introducing my own OPC part such as:
	<w:document><w:document/><w:document>
It is not valid against wml.{xsd,rnc}, but I do not think this
invalidity breaks 209500 conformance.

Cheers,
Makoto