Question regarding DR 09-0216

[Innovimax SARL]

Well I'm puzzled by this assertion
""hey could make a change to a document that renders it invalid, by simply
deleting a paragraph for example. """

I'm surprised : how a paragraph could be in custom Markup ?

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Doug Mahugh <Doug.Mahugh at microsoft.com>wrote:

> Alex,
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> - Doug
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Brown [mailto:alexb at griffinbrown.co.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:06 AM
> To: Innovimax SARL; Rex Jaeschke
> Cc: SC 34 WG4
> Subject: RE: Question regarding DR 09-0216
>
> Dear all,
>
> I too would like to see the questions answered.
>
> 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?
>
> - Alex.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Innovimax SARL [mailto:innovimax at gmail.com]
> > Sent: 30 June 2009 07:42
> > To: Rex Jaeschke
> > Cc: SC 34 WG4
> > Subject: Re: Question regarding DR 09-0216
> >
> > Rex,
> >
> > Correct me if I'm wrong but the objection Murata and I did are not
> > incorporated.
> >
> > (I'm just restating this because Shawn answer disturbed me a bit...)
> >
> > Mohamed
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:57 PM, Rex Jaeschke<rex at rexjaeschke.com>
> > wrote:
> > > 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
> > >
> > > 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").
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Innovimax SARL
> > Consulting, Training & XML Development
> > 9, impasse des Orteaux
> > 75020 Paris
> > Tel : +33 9 52 475787
> > Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
> > http://www.innovimax.fr
> > RCS Paris 488.018.631
> > SARL au capital de 10.000 €
>



-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 9 52 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 €
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20090701/677021ca/attachment.htm>