<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>The term “custom XML markup” in this DR is in reference to
WordprocessingML’s customXml element, which is used within the body of a
WordprocessingML document. The customXml element may contain paragraphs or it
can be inside a paragraph and contain runs. Here’s a simple example that shows
some of the possibilities: <a
href="http://www.mahugh.com/images/blog/2007/03/26/samplemarkup.jpg">http://www.mahugh.com/images/blog/2007/03/26/samplemarkup.jpg</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Note that this concept is distinct from the concept of a custom
XML part (or datastore) that can be contained in an OPC package. A custom XML
part is a purely custom XML instance based on custom schemas that are not part
of the standard (and I believe this is what you’re thinking of when you ask how
a paragraph could be in custom markup). The customXml element, on the other
hand, is used inline within a WordprocessingML document to add custom semantics,
where it may be intermingled with paragraphs, runs, images, and other types of
WordprocessingML content.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>- Doug<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Innovimax SARL
[mailto:innovimax@gmail.com] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, July 01, 2009 8:13 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Doug Mahugh<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Alex Brown; Rex Jaeschke; SC 34 WG4<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Question regarding DR 09-0216<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Well I'm puzzled by this
assertion<br>
""hey could make a change to a document that renders it invalid, by
simply deleting a paragraph for example. """<br>
<br>
I'm surprised : how a paragraph could be in custom Markup ?<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Doug Mahugh <<a
href="mailto:Doug.Mahugh@microsoft.com">Doug.Mahugh@microsoft.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Alex,<br>
<br>
In the approach we've used for implementing this particular feature,
"can" is indeed correct. The rationale behind that flexibility
is that the user may be unaware that the custom XML markup exists, and they
could make a change to a document that renders it invalid, by simply deleting a
paragraph for example. In that case, the user may not know what needs to
be done to make their change in a schema-valid way, so they have no ability to
correct the error if schema validation against the custom schema were required.
So we allow them to save the document anyway, preserving the user's
intended content even if it is no longer consistent with the custom schema.<br>
<br>
I think it's worth making a distinction between the requirements of dedicated
XML editors (whose primary role is help users create instances of specific
schemas), and word-processing applications (whose primary role is helping users
create documents with specific content, structure and layout). The
customXML element in IS29500 is a lightweight optional mechanism for adding
custom semantics to word-processing documents, and the attachedSchema itself is
optional.<br>
<span style='color:#888888'><br>
- Doug</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Alex Brown [mailto:<a href="mailto:alexb@griffinbrown.co.uk">alexb@griffinbrown.co.uk</a>]<br>
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:06 AM<br>
To: Innovimax SARL; Rex Jaeschke<br>
Cc: SC 34 WG4<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Subject: RE: Question regarding DR 09-0216<br>
<br>
Dear all,<br>
<br>
I too would like to see the questions answered.<br>
<br>
On Mohamed's point, ISO wording (not RFC) wording is in force, so
"can" is fine. But do we really mean "can". What if the
schema makes modifications to the instance; in that case wouldn't different XML
be implied depending on whether or not validation took place?<br>
<br>
- Alex.<br>
<br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: Innovimax SARL [mailto:<a href="mailto:innovimax@gmail.com">innovimax@gmail.com</a>]<br>
> Sent: 30 June 2009 07:42<br>
> To: Rex Jaeschke<br>
> Cc: SC 34 WG4<br>
> Subject: Re: Question regarding DR 09-0216<br>
><br>
> Rex,<br>
><br>
> Correct me if I'm wrong but the objection Murata and I did are not<br>
> incorporated.<br>
><br>
> (I'm just restating this because Shawn answer disturbed me a bit...)<br>
><br>
> Mohamed<br>
><br>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:57 PM, Rex Jaeschke<<a
href="mailto:rex@rexjaeschke.com">rex@rexjaeschke.com</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
> > I show email traffic (see below) based on my proposed response, but<br>
> no<br>
> > record of agreement on the final words after that. Did I miss<br>
> something, or<br>
> > do we still need final words?<br>
> ><br>
> > Rex<br>
> ><br>
> > 1. DR 09-0216 — WML: Custom XML and Smart Tags<br>
> ><br>
> > Status: Closed; will be incorporated in COR1<br>
> ><br>
> > Subject: WML: Custom XML and Smart Tags<br>
> ><br>
> > Qualifier: Request for clarification<br>
> ><br>
> > Submitter: Mr. Francis Cave (BSI)<br>
> ><br>
> > Contact Information: <a href="mailto:francis@franciscave.com">francis@franciscave.com</a><br>
> ><br>
> > Submitter’s Defect Number: 08-00131<br>
> ><br>
> > Supporting Document(s): none<br>
> ><br>
> > Date Circulated by Secretariat: 2009-05-22<br>
> ><br>
> > Deadline for Response from Editor: 2009-07-22<br>
> ><br>
> > IS 29500 Reference(s): Part 1: §17.5.1, “Custom XML and Smart Tags”,<br>
> p. 529<br>
> ><br>
> > Related DR(s): none<br>
> ><br>
> > Nature of the Defect:<br>
> ><br>
> > The second para on p. 529 following the bullets has: "The
distinction<br>
> > between custom XML markup and smart tags is that custom XML markup is<br>
> based<br>
> > on a specified schema."<br>
> ><br>
> > It is not clear how "a specified schema" is specified in
this<br>
> context. Can<br>
> > there only be one specified schema per document?<br>
> ><br>
> > Solution Proposed by the Submitter:<br>
> ><br>
> > Point to normative text describing how one or more schemas are<br>
> specified, or<br>
> > - if this does not exist - provide new text.<br>
> ><br>
> > Schema Change(s) Needed:<br>
> ><br>
> > Editor’s Response:<br>
> ><br>
> > The exact changes are as follows:<br>
> ><br>
> > Part 1: §17.5, “Custom XML and Smart Tags”, p. 529<br>
> ><br>
> > The distinction between custom XML markup and smart tags is that<br>
> custom XML<br>
> > markup is based on a specified schema, which shall be specified using<br>
> the<br>
> > attachedSchema element (§17.15.1.5). As a result, the custom XML<br>
> elements<br>
> > can be validated against the schema. Also, as shown below, custom XML<br>
> markup<br>
> > can be used at the block-level as well as on the inline (run) level.<br>
> ><br>
> > 2009-06-11 Makoto Murata:<br>
> ><br>
> >> which shall be specified using the attachedSchema element<br>
> ><br>
> > Is this a recommendation or a requirement? In other words, is
the<br>
> > attachedSchema element authoritative?<br>
> ><br>
> > 2009-06-11 Mohamed Zergaoui:<br>
> ><br>
> > I was also wondering why it is used "CAN" which is not RFC
compliant.<br>
> ><br>
> > I would also go for a "MAY" ("XML elements MAY be
validated") and<br>
> would also<br>
> > add ("but MUST be valid with respect to the
attachedSchema").<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Innovimax SARL<br>
> Consulting, Training & XML Development<br>
> 9, impasse des Orteaux<br>
> 75020 Paris<br>
> Tel : +33 9 52 475787<br>
> Fax : +33 1 4356 1746<br>
> <a href="http://www.innovimax.fr" target="_blank">http://www.innovimax.fr</a><br>
> RCS Paris 488.018.631<br>
> SARL au capital de 10.000 €<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
<br clear=all>
<br>
-- <br>
Innovimax SARL<br>
Consulting, Training & XML Development<br>
9, impasse des Orteaux<br>
75020 Paris<br>
Tel : +33 9 52 475787<br>
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746<br>
<a href="http://www.innovimax.fr">http://www.innovimax.fr</a><br>
RCS Paris 488.018.631<br>
SARL au capital de 10.000 €<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>