WG4's handling of DR-09-0248 - General: Removing the need for qualifiers on attributes in Strict

[Jirka Kosek]

MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) wrote:

> Here are some new findings.   The more I study about the required
> changes, the more pessimistic I become.

I have never been optimistic after study of IS 29500 ;-)

> 1. WML attributes in S
> 
> WML in Part 1 has 429 attribute definitions with qualified 
> names.  Although the left column for these attribute definitions 
> does not mention qualification, the right column contains 
> examples of qualified attributes.
> 
> I believe that we have to rewrite all 429 definitions.  I 
> do not think that one paragraph for reinterpreting the 
> definitions is good enough.
> 
> I am quite sure that there are number of other examples having 
> wml-qualified attributes in Part 1.  We need editing instructions 
> for all of them.

Of course, it would be great to have all examples updated, but
realistically I don't think anyone would go through list of CORs and
AMDs and manually apply changes to ISO/IEC 29500:2008. So I still think
that for amendment it would be sufficient just to say, that in all
examples in Part 1 when considered for Strict prefixes w: (and few
others as you mention below) are removed from attributes. When complete
revised text is published again as ISO/IEC 29500:20XX, then examples of
course will be updated, but there will be more time for doing this
intensive editorial work.

Moreover, it seems that you see main problem in examples. But those
examples are just informative part of the standard (see Part 1/Section
7/Page 16), so this IMHO decreases need to literally add them into AMD1.

Moreover we can amend Part 1/Annex D (Namespace Prefix Mapping in
Examples) to repeat that in examples for Strict, prefixes like w: do not
apply to attributes.

> 3. Qualified attributes in other MLs
> 
> Apart from wml qualified attributes, Part1 introduces other 
> qualified attributes (shown below).  If we want to make wml 
> attributes unqualified, we have to be consistent.  I believe 
> that those in shared-relationshipReference.rnc are qualified 
> for a good reason, but the others are not.  

I agree, and I think that this is aligned with what I have proposed in
09-0248.

> 4. Schema changes
> 
> As for XSD, we only have to replace  attributeFormDefault="qualified" 
> by  attributeFormDefault="unqualified".  I can easily generate RELAX NG
> schemas, but the editing instruction for changing the schema in 29500 is
> another issue.  Since there are 429 attribute definitions in wml.rnc, 
> we need 429 editing instructions.

As there will be other changes in schema, wouldn't it be easier just to
dump complete new schema into AMD1? This will be just one editing
instruction: replace old schema with new one.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
  Jirka Kosek      e-mail: jirka at kosek.cz      http://xmlguru.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------
       Professional XML consulting and training services
  DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
------------------------------------------------------------------
 OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member
------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 258 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20090702/e72c38f5/attachment.pgp>