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

[Innovimax SARL]

My understanding is to make the most important modification (in the
prose) first and
have a general statement saying that everywhere in the spec where you
see prefix you should read as if they weren't there

Then in the next COR we would make the explicit correction of the examples

Mohamed

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Shawn Villaron<shawnv at microsoft.com> wrote:
> Haven't we been fixing examples which conflict with the schemas/prose to address the issue of potential confusion by readers?  I'm afraid that if we have a bunch of examples that use qualified attributes in WordprocessingML and yet the prose/schemas prohibit this, that we're actually make the potential confusion problem worse.  Am I missing something here?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) [mailto:eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp]
> Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 5:02 AM
> To: 'e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org'
> Subject: Re: WG4's handling of DR-09-0248 - General: Removing the need for qualifiers on attributes in Strict
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> I continue to feel uneasy unless I understand minor details.  We're running out of time.  Please provide required instructions, demonstrate that incorrect non-normative examples are not that harmful.  Review all occurrences of at least a few attributes and show which one has to be corrected by which instruction and which one does not have to be corrected.
>
>> 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.
>
> I do not know if occurrences of WML-qualified attributes are restricted to examples.  I know that they occur in examples but they may appear elsewhere.
>
>> 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.
>
> This is not the way the Defect Log has been prepared.  I believe that the upcoming DCORs and FPDAMs will contain many small changes.  One could argue against that style, but it is too late to do so.
>
> Cheers,
> Makoto
>
>



-- 
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 €